> MS: So, we have a character, within a word, within a
> sentence—in short, within a context, one which leads us
> unequivocally to expect Aa1 at this point.
> SC: None of which we have in cartouche #21 (in wiki). Hence the
> absolute neccessity for hatchings to have been made in the disc
> (and to have been carved to ensure longevity and prevent
> potential ambiguity in the event of paint flaking).
> MS: Same old a priori pronouncement on how Seti’s scribes and
> masons “should” or “must” have done things, blithely
> disregarding the evidence of what they really did.
> SC: Nope. What Seti's scribes "really did" was use their
> common sense.
Which you know how, exactly? Divine inspiration? Direct, unmediated access to the minds of Seti’s scribes?
Same old a priori pronouncement . . .
The “common sense” of Seti's scribes coinciding of course with the “common sense” of Scott Creighton—while “common sense” for Scott creighton is a mere rubber stamp for whatever Scott Creigton says. How convenient! Saves you all that tiresome stuff, like learning something about the topic before you spout.
Odd to find the bold, independent thinker so parochial in his thinking. Well, not so odd, really.
Sorry to disturb your mystical communion with Seti's scribes, Scott, but we all know someone who does this: invokes “common sense” as an all-purpose trump card. It’s a typical politician’s ploy: a patronising appeal to a presumed prejudice of the “common man”—“ad hominem” in its true, original sense.
You’ll find, Scott, that invoking “common sense” is a risky procedure for bold, independent thinkers: common sense tends to write them off in no time flat, as cranks or charlatans. Often justly.
Here’s what common sense tells me about you: you’re a self-promoting blowhard, with no real interest in the topic you traduce, but with ambitions in the ancient mysteries market: a low-grade Graham Hancock wannabe.
How d’you like that common sense?
> MS:This was Seti’s temple. The inscriptions had
> religious significance. They were all important.
> SC: This is not disputed.
> MS: You’re claiming that this one character is so much
> more important than the rest? Pure special pleading!
> SC: I'm not claiming anything of the sort.
Yes, you are. You’re claiming that a character in the same context as this character would receive special attention—which certainly is something “of the sort” (your phrase), even if you don’t like my paraphrase.
Word it however you like: it’s still special pleading.
> MS: Your only “reason” for saying so is to prop up your
> SC: But I am not claiming anything of the sort so I cannot
> possibly be using what you are claiming I am using to prop up
> my argument.
As above: you are claiming something “of the sort” (and very clearly so).
You’ll find, Scott, that shifty evasions like this one impress no one.
> MS: Show me one single example in the temple of Seti of
> Aa1 with “hatchings” in the disc.
> SC: You're forgetting the all-important 'context' here. The
> disc in cartouche #21 is identical to the solar discs in the
> immediate cartouches that follow i.e #22, #23 & #24. So, tell
> me, in the context of identical solar discs, why should I not
> consider that the disc in cartouche #21 is the very same glyph
> and has rhe very same meaning as those identical glyphs in #22,
> #23 & #24? Tell me how I should tell them apart?
Try being a scholar instead of a ****er.
Get over yourself, Scott. The world does not revolve around you. Whether you can tell them apart matters not a jot.
What matters is whether the ancient Egyptians could.
For sensible people: the answer has already been given, obviously. See below.
Suggestion for Scott: look up “selective evidence”.
> MS: Here’s a good place to start looking:
> SC: Ditto. Get looking. I know how to do it (at least I've a
> good idea). Let's see if you - the expert - can work it out.
Show me where I claimed to be an expert.
Hint: I didn’t. So don’t tell lies about me.
Still playing this facile game? Try playing it like I did: without cheating.
Say it as often as you like, Scott: when I set you a challenge, I gave plenty of clues (as everyone can see):
Should I be worried? I don’t think so. Guess what: I already have looked. I’m satisfied that there’s nothing there—that your supposed discovery can only be another of your clownish misunderstandings.
Second-guessing what passes for your thought process scarcely makes my list of priorities: I merely look forward to a good, long laugh at the final revelation of your brilliant insight.
Oh, and don’t suppose I didn’t notice your sidestep.
Again: show me one single example in the temple of Seti of Aa1 with “hatchings” in the disc.
> MS: As for the context of cartouche 21: 20 = Seneferu,
> 22 = Djedefre, 23 = Khafre, 24 = Menkaure, 25 = Shepseskaf.
> So tell me: whose name would we expect to see at 21?
> SC: Well going by conventional Egyptology we would have to
> expect "Khufu". [. . .]
Hold on to that thought.