Mysteries :
The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board).
Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> eyeofhorus33 Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > The same glyph is used as a determiner in the
> > phrase "Akhet Khufu" to refer to Khufu's pyramid,
> > as cited already by Martin - many times, to your
> > chagrin, as also previously stated.
>
> That's you'r [sic] opinion.
No, Femano, it’s not his opinion: it’s a statement of knowledge by one competent to make it.
The clique’s ploy du jour is to relativise. It’s all just opinion, they dogmatise, running full tilt into paradox.
> Others have a different take on what Akhet Khufu
> refers to and I'm sure you're well aware of that.
Bring on your citations, Doctor Femano—and we’ll show you that not only are you wrong, but clumsily wrong, conceitedly wrong, culpably wrong. I say “show you” but of course you won’t get it, any more than you did last time round. Others will.
> While your interpretation is within the realm of
> possibility it is by no means as definitive as
> you make it out to be.
Playing on the ambiguity of “interpretation”, just like Creighton. It’s not “interpretation”, it’s translation, something beyond your competence to assess.
M.
-------------------------------------------------------
> eyeofhorus33 Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > The same glyph is used as a determiner in the
> > phrase "Akhet Khufu" to refer to Khufu's pyramid,
> > as cited already by Martin - many times, to your
> > chagrin, as also previously stated.
>
> That's you'r [sic] opinion.
No, Femano, it’s not his opinion: it’s a statement of knowledge by one competent to make it.
The clique’s ploy du jour is to relativise. It’s all just opinion, they dogmatise, running full tilt into paradox.
> Others have a different take on what Akhet Khufu
> refers to and I'm sure you're well aware of that.
Bring on your citations, Doctor Femano—and we’ll show you that not only are you wrong, but clumsily wrong, conceitedly wrong, culpably wrong. I say “show you” but of course you won’t get it, any more than you did last time round. Others will.
> While your interpretation is within the realm of
> possibility it is by no means as definitive as
> you make it out to be.
Playing on the ambiguity of “interpretation”, just like Creighton. It’s not “interpretation”, it’s translation, something beyond your competence to assess.
M.