Usimare Setepenre Wrote:
> I am well aware of Herodotus's mention of twenty
Now you are, but this clearly does not jibe with your previous comment I responded to:
"The 20 years estimate in fact has nothing to do with Herodotus."
If you were actually "aware" then you would not say something most anyone actually familiar with the subject knows to be patently false. If you were aware you would know the 20yrs has everything to do with Herodotus's estimate.
> And you clearly fail to comprehend even
> basic written English.
Yes, you not having a clue of what you are talking about, but pretending you do must be my fault. Pointing it out apparently is at least.
> No where did I assert
> anything about what Herodotus did or did not say.
You do not need to explain what your assertion was as we can read it clearly for ourselves. Again, for the English impaired:
The 20 years estimate in fact has nothing to do with Herodotus. Rather, it is based on the estimation of Egyptologists such as Mark Lehner and Zahi Hawass, as well as structural engineers knowledgeable in the subject such as Jean Pierre Houdin.
We do not need to take your word for what Herodotus said or not as we can read it for ourselves. The concern at the moment is what you said.
> My point was simply that the twenty year estimate
> was arrived at independently of Herodotus.
No, this was not your point. Again, this is the opposite of true. But please, you said this 20yrs was not in fact derived from Herodotus, wrong, but rather the independant verification of Egyptologists like of Lehner and Hawass and the structural engineer Houdin-so please provide quotes and sources of their independant research which verifies this 20yr period. Here, let me give you a head start in your futility by quoting myself again, which you ignore:
Lehner, based on a construction management study he was part of, suggests G1 was built in as little as 10yrs. John Romer 14yrs. Hawass seems content with Herodotus's 20yrs if not a little longer, and Houdin is unconcerned how long it took but focuses rather on how and accepts the 20yr period out of hand.
Please, go on...
> And in
> that since, Herodotus is irrelevant.
> And yes, I am well aware of the research conducted
> by my own colleagues.
Obviously you are not. On both counts.
> Simply regurgitating the
> opposing argument doesn't mean you understand it.
Opposing argument to what? You not knowing WTF you are talking about? Sorry, this is not an "argument", but rather the state of facts we know them which ironically all I have done is cite the actual sources you clearly know nothing about yet for some curious reason are here pretending you do. And I suppose the reason I can't understand it is because I cannot comprehend basic written English. Right.
> If you didn't, you wouldn't be spewing such
> intellectually dishonest nonsense.
Lol. If you would, please explain how it is "intellectually dishonest" to quote Herodotus himself and sources that quote him which verify this is where this number originally comes from, not to mention citing the noted opinions of the very people you claim came to this idea independently which in their own words we can see they did not and if anything when they did they came to different conclusions than "20yrs".
Just to recap:
I can't comprehend English.
I am simply regurgitating the opposing argument, which other than to contradict your ignorance there is none, which I do not understand it regardless.
And I am spewing intellectually dishonest nonsense.
K. Let's keep going and see what other maladies I may have.
> I take it you have read several of the
> Egyptological works relevant to this issue?
You claimed to be a long time lurker on this forum yet curiously do not have a clue of anyone's actual opinions. Seems odd.
> Unfortunately, scholarly writing is no cure for
> the intellectually incompetent.
Takes one to know one apparently. But, cool. Now I'm "intellectually incompetent" too.
> Go back to your
> couch and turn on Ancient Aliens and leave this
> discussion to the adults will ya.
Ah, yes. Now I am a couch dwelling Ancient Aliens disciple who is unqualified to discuss these topics with such kindred intellects as yourself and Cladking. Got me there.
It is clear you are obviously a shill, and a poor one at that, here for no other reason than to be as boorish and disruptive a troll as possible. But please, continue....
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 15-Jan-18 16:11 by Thanos5150.