> You can’t read the texts. You are entirely
> dependent upon the translations, sign lists and
> dictionaries of Egyptologists. All you add is
> idio-Egyptology, stuff you’ve made up and got
If I were a better writer and more educated I could lay out where you have twisted the logic and why. But all I can do is observe that you are playing fast and loose with the word "read". By saying he can't read the texts you are implying that Egyptologists can. Where is your evidence for this contention? Isn't it true that almost all cooks can read a recipe and then with the ingredients make just about the same dish? Isn't it true that the word "read" means "to take the meaning of"?
You are simply implying that Egyptologists can take the meaning of the writing and even Egyptologists don't make this claim. They say they can only circumscribe the meaning because it is gobbledty gook and incantation.
You can not win this argument because no two Egyptologists agree on the meaning of anything therefore there is no evidence any Egyptologist can read the writing. Saying they can is another appeal to authority and another appeal to your "mountain of evidence" that lacks any direct evidence any great pyramid was designed or used as a tomb.
Egyptology needs to get their act together. This is the third millennium and people are not so ignorant and sheep-like any longer. We can also communicate in real time and see the gaping flaws in your evidence, methodology, and logic.
I never thought I'd come to see the day that I'd see the quacks from the 1960's and 1970's more like pioneers than opportunists but it already may be beginning. I just never realized what unevidenced hokum was being used to build paradigms.
> Here as elsewhere you try to boost it by
> relativising: it’s all just opinion, and yours
> is as good as anyone’s. No, it isn’t.
Of course his opinion isn't as good as an Egyptologist but this doesn't mean his opinion is less likely to be correct. There are many instances where the prevailing scientific opinion has proven to be wrong. Surgeons in the 1850's killed most of their patients with infections because they thought that there was no time to wash their hands.
> expensive at the price.
You can't put a price tag on knowledge and understanding.
I'd be inclined to say in the long run it is cheap at any price.