> As it should be to anyone which only goes to show
> Jaudrigyptian is not being honest and just
> distorting what was said as an excuse to feign
> butthurt to attack me because I do not agree with
> them apparently.
Oy, so much for Corpuscles' request that we take a breather. So...
OK, I've had a breather and will calmly try to present a short lesson in English 101:
First of all, no one attacked you. You did the "incredibly stupid" attacking all by yourself.
Now, to exemplify the linguistic logic at play here, consider that when someone says "I do not believe God exists", it is not logically equivalent to "I believe God does not exist". For many people it means "I do not have any reason to believe God exists at this time with the information I currently have". It could mean "I currently do not have any reason to believe, but if I get new information that provides good evidence that God exists then I may be more prone to believe". Meanwhile, God might or might not exist, and so I cannot definitely "believe" God exists yet.
Likewise, when I say "if" the AE's made those vessels, it does not necessarily mean "they did not make those vessels". It simply means the verdict isn't in yet since there's no proof they did and, more importantly, no contradictory evidence to the notion that they didn't make the vessels. Therefore there is a logical basis for doubt, and that provides for the status of "mystery" which you characterized as "incredibly stupid".
Now, I'm sorry that you consider that to be an extreme way to address scientific observation and logic, but that's how scientific thought works. What you seem to not acknowledge is that a lot of people too quickly fall into the mainstream mantra: "If so many people believe it, how can it not be true", and we're left with an existential quagmire such as what we see happening in Egyptology at this moment.
I cannot accept unquestionably that the AEs made those vessels without physical evidence attesting to it, or that those buildings were designed to be tombs during the dynastic era, or that the Romans had anything at all to do with those giant slabs in Baalbek (except perhaps for the way some of their surfaces have been hacked up), or that the Romans made all of those 60+ ton columns even though recorded record doesn't indicate they were capable of moving anything over 30 tons, or that entasis is simply an aesthetic style, or that those engravings in tombs presented by Stocks, et al. have anything to do with real tools in the real world.
There are so many mainstream notions that strike me as absurd, appear to be baseless with respect to the physical evidence, and possibly have a completely different explanation that is more compatible with the existing evidence. I voice my opinions here and I treat everyone respectfully who agree and who respectfully disagree with me.
But start with the thuggish sarcasm, name calling, character assassination, etc. and the gloves come off.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?