> Thanos5150 wrote:
> > Origyptian wrote:
> > [snip]
> > No where in your reply do you acknowledge the fact you were
> > mistaken regarding the ostraca dating to the 2nd century AD,
> > the same era of Roman construction using stone from MC and
> > "long before".
> > You will no doubt ignore it once again and say "this is not
> > point", but it is the point. Honesty. Respect. Contrition.
> I have denied nothing.
I did not say you "denied" it, I said you do not acknowledge it. Why would you misrepresent what I said like that?
> I took your comment in stride.
By ignoring them?
> for focusing the timeline.
I didn't focus on the timeline but rather your misunderstanding of it which you based your opinions on. Yet once again despite being in error you do not revise your opinions in light of new information that contradicts them.
> But the only point I was making
Right on cue as predicted. After refusing to acknowledge your mistakes you go right into the "the point I was making" routine playing the victim again that somehow you have been misunderstood. Don't you think its weird I said you would do this, you quote me saying you will do this, and sure enough this is exactly what you do?
> is that it was written after
> the fact and was not a daily journal but rather was written "in
> hindsight" with no explanation given. I'm sure you realize that
> was my point; does it matter whether the hindsight was 1 mo., 1
> yr., or 10 years?
According to Guiseppe ("Global Convict Labor"; 2015), the ostraca apparently were written long after much of the "quarrying" occurred.
Again, this is what you said. No where does this source say this. Before this is your previous post which I have quoted you said:
But OK, so it sounds like you're saying that the sheer volume of stone thought to have originated from "Mons Claudianus" makes it indisputable that the stone was quarried on demand by the Romans in the 1st c. AD.
You believe the quarrying was done in the 1st century AD but it was not, it was the 2nd century which in reality is when most of the ostraca date to; a clear contradiction of your own claims of fact. Again this speaks to the issue many have with you here.
So not only does the author not say what you claim he does, but you do not even know the correct century the Romans in question (Trajan/Hadrian) quarried there. So when you read in the other article where it says they are writing in "hindsight" you self-servingly interpret this to mean years, decades, or even the next century after the fact so therefore how can they be remotely accurate. The "reasonable doubt" mongering ever at work. But now you know they were written during the years they were doing the quarrying so do you revise your opinion? Correct these errors? No, you double down by ignoring it and say the point is..."does it matter whether the hindsight was 1 mo., 1yr., or 10 years?". Dishonest.
But why would you interpret this to mean "1mo, 1yr, or 10yrs" when obviously this makes no sense? You do so only to maintain your self-consistent narrative which compels you to cast a "reasonable doubt" to maintain it where otherwise there is none. And for some reason if they did make these mundane records this far out given it would be nearly impossible for anyone to actually remember such things, they would have compiled them from notes taken at the time. This is what we do with our tax returns every year is it not?
Regardless, he says they kept "inventories documenting the actual situation given on any given day". What is more likely to you that this was done in "hindsight" at the end of the work day, work week, or even a month; or as you suggest a year or 10yrs after the fact? Or even in the next century as you were suggesting before? What would be the point of making mundane quarry records of daily inventories 10yrs later? And regardless, I could not make daily inventories documenting what I did yesterday let alone a year or 10yrs ago. This is absurd.
And if I had to for whatever reason I would have to rely on collections of other documents made at the time otherwise it would be complete gibberish which obviously the ostraca are not.
But these are ostraca not formal ledgers regardless and are for the benefit of those working there, not to be archived by the state i.e. what would be the point of some mason making records of how much rock was moved on what day from which quarry 10yrs later? Kind of absurd don't you think? If one is being honest with themselves, there is no reason to assume the ostraca were not reasonably accurate made in a timely manner after the events occurred.
> It's interesting that you would express indignance about the
> lack of "respect".
Not at all. You seem bewildered why you receive so little and yet by the same token others would expect it from you. I am trying to help you understand why and give you a path to correct it.
> Sorry, but this sounds like a deflection. Perhaps it's a
> cultural difference that makes you so nonchalantly hostile when
> you are disagreed with but you don't notice it. Go back and
> read the escalation.
Yes, deflection by you. On cue. I am not sure what "cultural difference" you are referring to, but again please do not lie. My attitude toward you has zero to do with whether we agree or disagree and I have said this to you in no uncertain terms many times now and yet each time you lie and pretend I did not say this and play the victim card repeating the same lie over and over again. It has become pathological at this point. Why do you do this?
> I've treated others far better here than
> they have treated me.
I am sure many would disagree. Your dishonesty and willful obliviousness toward issues with your behavior are to me the worst treatment one could endure and clearly hostile passive aggressive behavior. You are not fooling anyone, sorry.
> I've only asked a very simple question
> and at least three of you have pulled out all the stops in an
> attempt to excoriate me.
Again you are repeating a blatant self-serving lie that again portrays yourself as the victim despite the fact you have been told in no uncertain terms countless times now by several posters this is not true.
As to the first part of your lie, another lie in and of itself, saying this is all because you "asked a simple question", a question answered as best as possible countless different ways, I believe DScribr has summed up this nonsense quite well. You should feel shame.
> The record is very clear on that.
Yes it is.
> the other hand, I have repeatedly tried to clarify my question
> the best I can, I have posted each relevant ostraca I have come
> across in my reading, and have complimented the content of your
> posts despite your constant insults back.
Which has been answered the best we can to the satisfaction of everyone on the planet except for you and your familiar Jon. Which these ostraca clearly support MC being a Roman quarry, so I appreciate that. Yes, you pat me on the back while you lie to my face. Thank you. How "gentlemanly". Sorry, but again you are fooling no one.
> What continues to be insulting (or at least very frustrating)
> is that you seem to have the ostraca translations I've been
> asking for but still have not posted the info directly despite
> your propensity for thoroughness otherwise, such as your
> excellent photo bombs.
This would be in your own mind then as I do not have them and made no claims I do. Surely if I did I would post them here so unless you are trolling for someone to get this information for you as usual I am confused as to why you would suggest such a thing.
Post Edited (27-Jun-15 16:32)