BTW, you were recently told about this problem in Dunn (2002) and you choose to ignore it and post the claim like it still had some validity
Yeah, and guess what? As of late, I usually try to avoid reading most of your posts. Mainly because you've consistently proven yourself to be biased, illogical, close-minded, and condescending. No offense, of course. In fact, I've actually asked the GHMB moderators if phorum offered any additional bells and whistles that could be implemented on these message boards, specifically an "ignore button" feature, just so I don't have to read any more of your inane posts. Because I know I can't be the only one fed up with your endless hogwash and poppycock.
But regardless, even though I could probably Google around and read about Dunn's side of the story, I actually don't even care at this point. Mainly because even if he used the wrong data/calculations in that particular article, the vast majority his theories are *STILL* much more plausible than yours and the orthodox Egyptologists. Period.
Post Edited (24-Feb-13 03:31)