> Hello Avry,
> I wrote, ‘You and Martin are relying very
> heavily on Gardiner's work.
> Are you sure that this is a wise thing to do?
> You replied, ‘A. Yes it is wise to rely on an
> established authority who specializes in the
> Kind of a bizarre question.’
> No, Avry, it is not a ‘kind of a bizarre
It is doubly bizarre you think it is not. Gardiner is still required reading. In his case the age of the work does not undo its strength. And what would you know? Who do you rely on? Creighton? Sam Petry? Sitchin?
> Gardiner is not the only expert on hieroglyphs,
> and it is quite in order to draw on other experts
> – something you and Martin choose not to do.
It is just one example. There are others, and I constantly review them in context. That you somehow conclude I or Martin only use Gardinder is rather funny ... and ... bizarre. Also apparently lost on you is that I follow footnotes and other resources. Doesn't that tell you that as much as Gardiner is a good primary resource I still verify beyond him?
> I asked, ‘Are there no other experts - ideally
> alive - on hieroglyphics, etc., that you can call
> You replied, ‘Plenty.’
> Then why aren’t you calling on their expertise?
Don't need to at this point. Hammering Creighton on this is as remedial as slow motion Wack-a-mole.
> You wrote, ‘Ask Creighton the same question.
> Should you not wonder why he is avoiding
> presenting this at the EEF? Should you not wonder
> why he did not *begin* this with a presentation to
> lettered professionals, choosing instead
> alternative MBs?
> I’m not interested enough to wonder about such
So, you're on me like stick on lumpy rice, but could care less about Creighton? Fascinating.
> I asked, ‘If there are such [experts], then what
> is the consensus on this 'Rotated (or horizontal)
> numerals in Campbell’s Chamber' business?
> You replied, ‘I don't know because I'm not the
> one to present it to them.’
> Could this be because you are much happier –
> feel safer – only reading Gardiner’s up-to-70
> years old work than getting the opinions of some
> current experts?
Nope. Just comfortable with what I do have to hand, and am under no obligation to present it. Creighton is terrified to have a go at official sites and institutions because he knows he'll be shown the door. If you must know, it is not a complete consensus. Want to find out from someone else at EEF, etc.,? Then give it a shot. Or do you feel much happier - safer - taking Creighton's 'expertise'?
> You wrote, ‘Perhaps Creighton would like to give
> a talk at the Oriental Institute (or equivalent
> British forum) to find out.’
> Indeed he might.
I would honestly be delighted to see those results.
Care to comment on the specific subject of hieratic, or would you rather continue trolling my posts to engage in who the best sources are?