Origyptian wrote:

> Martin Stower wrote:
>
> > You should learn to read before commenting. Not just read
> the
> > literature before commenting, but read at all.
> >
> > All you and your kind can come up with is, “It’s a forgery!”
> —
> > pure evasion, pure ad hoc dodging — and then you have the
> > conceit — the presumption — to prate and preach about
> > “evidence”.
> >
> > Let me explain it to you Femano, as you’re evidently too
> > lacking intellectually and morally to see what you’re doing:
> > the “pathological thuggery” of unevidenced smears of named
> > individuals is coming from you, all in the noble cause of
> > kidding yourself that you “know better”.
>
>
> What on earth are you flapping your jibs about now? That the
> Khufu Stele is the result of "forgery" is about the most remote
> possibility I can think of...other than it actually being
> authentic royal signage from the 4th Dynasty, that is.
>
> Rather, the evidence far more strongly suggests that it was
> created in much more recent times, perhaps as a commemorative
> token to a well known figure who was long gone by the time that
> engraving was done and stone erected (e.g., Prince Albert
> National Park ).
>
> You can try to associate "fraud" or "forgery" to it if you
> think it will get you some attention from one of your lovebots
> here, but I'm certainly not calling it a fraud or forgery.
>
> You are the only one emphasizing "forgery" with that piece. I
> think you are incorrect in doing so.
>

>
> Post Edited (22-Jan-15 16:34)

You're waffling...you've been suggesting that the Khufu Stele Cartouche IS a forgery thru out this entire thread.