> Origyptian Wrote:
> > The sequence is clear. Just leave it at that:
> > 1046674
> Well Ori , that's a strange thing to say,
> especially coming from you, as you have cast doubt
> on practically every other sequence of events on
> any other topic discussed on these forums.
> They may be clear to you, but clear is of course
> subjective to whoever makes that assessment .
> In your link above where you lay out your clear
> sequence , i note some of your terminology .
> "It's not unreasonable to suggest "
> "I don't know if the ownership of the
> "sarcophagus" was formally transferred by the
> Pasha to the British Museum "
> " At this time we only know i"
> "As Martin said, the date of the Pasha's letter
> that transfers ownership to the Museum is still
> 'research pending'. "
> " What we can say with reasonable confidence "
> "its' not clear to me that Palmerston had the
> Well that last quote kinda says to me that things
> are not as clear as you make out in your
> dissertation on the sequence of events, and one
> comes away feeling that a fair percentage is based
> on your personal speculation.
> Of course you may be close to how things went
> down, but nonetheless its speculation, and i see
> no harm in discovering some hard facts to add to
> the speculation, although my ineptitude in this
> venture may scupper that wish.
DUNE, my point, which you so thoroughly confirmed, is that when I'm not sure of something, I say I'm not sure. I don't go making a decree of something being true without supporting it with evidence. And so back around March 20 Stower said that sources "are inconsistent" regarding the departure date of the Beatrice from Malta without including any backup at all for making such a claim. When I challenged him on it he posted a vague (to me at least, at that time) excerpt from a Liverpool newspaper about wind, and a statement that the Beatrice traveled from Alexandria to Malta, reported under a "heading" of Oct 30. No indication what the heading means, no mention of "shipping intelligence" at that time. It took a full 2 weeks to squeeze out of him what the nature of the "inconsistency" was. Frankly, it's still not clear to me. Maybe that's because I'm not familiar with the implications of such listings in a column titled "Shipping Intelligence". According to Stower, that makes me "so retarded". I have no patience for such senseless idiocy.
We all knew about the Lloyd's Oct 13 date, but Stower kept claiming that the 30th was also a viable contender without volunteering all the information he had to back it up, even after repeated requests until weeks later. And so in lieu of him coming forward with his own source for that date, I looked at all the posts up to that point and only saw the single statement made by Brier citing the 30th with no citation to back it up. Stower said he wasn't using Brier's statement as the basis of his own claim of the 30th and felt the need to call me "obsessed" with Brier simply because I repeated that he was the only source I knew of that specifically said the Beatrice departed Malta on the 30th. I'm sorry if I'm so dense that I didn't interpret the Mercury newspaper the way Stower did. In fact, I'm still not sure how Stower interprets that thing since he never actually said, "I interpret that to mean that the Beatrice was still at port in Malta on the 30th". That's not how I interpreted his vague excerpt back on the 21st of March. Sorry. I still think that excerpt doesn't make sense in terms of how such information could have gotten to the Mercury so quickly from Malta (2 days?!), whether the 30th was simply when the Mercury found out the Beatrice had come and gone, and why Lloyd didn't seem to think the Mercury's report contradicted Stower's interpretation that the Beatrice was still at port in Malta on the 30th.
I don't understand why it's necessary to prod so much to get information here. If I felt confident enough to make a claim, I would be very forthcoming with my evidence. I don't play these coy games, keeping the evidence just out of sight around the corner.
The sequence I posted previously of our exchange is accurate. I put it there specifically so people could glean for themselves what happened. If it was clear to some where the inconsistency is, then fine. It simply wasn't clear to me. If that makes me "obsessed" and "retarded", as Stower so thuggishly put it, then stay away from me. Jeez.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 07-Apr-16 13:51 by Origyptian.