> Origyptian Wrote:
> >... SNIP
> > I treat everyone respectfully
> > who agree and who respectfully disagree with
> > But start with the thuggish sarcasm, name
> > character assassination, etc. and the gloves
> > off.
> Now STOP, LOOK at page 12, and THINK!
> Page 12
Direct quote - Origyptian
> Author: Origyptian ()
> Date: May 11, 2016 07:58PM
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> > So the mystery is not "if" the AE made stone
> > vessels, which is incredibly stupid to say
> YOU SAID!
> See, it's exactly that kind of myopic pompous
> arrogance that makes you so difficult to
> converse with.
> You started the drama with Thanos!
> UNDENIABLE FACT!
> The original post from Thanos was to me and it
> means.... it would be incredibly stupid to suggest
> that AE did not make any stone vessels!
> THINK hard!
Let's not stop there. Jon's direct response to what I said was:
I don't think is incredibly stupid at all, There is no evidence in the archaeological record of the tools, means or methods that could have remotely, possibly produced the one piece narrow necked vessels.
He is not offended and understands I am talking about the idea and not any person or group.
Now lets look at Audrey's first response:
So the mystery is not "if" the AE made stone vessels, which is incredibly stupid to say otherwise, it is why does this quality appear suddenly in Archaic Dynastic times (Dynasty 00/0), hand in hand with monumental noble tombs and boat
> burials among other curiosities, so fully developed and of a quality that is unsurpassed in later times (no, this is not an invitation to make a vapid comment about an antediluvian lost civilization). Most telling, to me anyways, is that this also all begins with the appearance of this: And it is here that Dynastic Egypt begins.
It is "here" that the homesteaders planted their butts and began to graffiti everything in sight.
She is not offended and understands I am talking about the idea and not any person or group.
No outcry or indignation that I am supposedly calling people "stupid" that followed in nearly each of her responses only after Origyptian's post which he first says this:
See, it's exactly that kind of myopic pompous arrogance that makes you so difficult to converse with....
So what is it about these scenes are seem so "obvious" to you to the point of calling anyone disagreeing with you, "incredibly stupid"?....
It's "incredibly stupid" to deny that provenance, eh? Nothing incredibly stupid about having blind faith acceptance of such attribution without any rationale other than attempted intimidation thrown at anyone who disagrees due to the lack of any tools and methods that could accomplish such precision stonework? You truly think yours is such an extremely credible position?....
What unbelievably "obvious" tools and methods that were used to make these things, Thanos, that would justify you calling anyone who expresses skepticism so "incredibly stupid"?....
Oh, that's "interesting" to you, is it? You means you're not being "incredibly stupid" for not understanding why all the stuff that orthodoxy claims to have been made with the oldest technology happens to be the best stuff?....
It's all so obvious...except for some "interesting" stuff that you can't explain and yet feel no compulsion to consider in your paradigm since it just might stir up that neat little self-consistent house of cards.
"Incredibly stupid" indeed.
Yeesh. And that is but the parts which include the words "incredibly stupid". Which despite being corrected Origyptian repeats several more times in all of his subsequent posts to the effect: "You're the one calling people "incredibly stupid"."
Now let's look at Audrey's following responses:
BS. You called me stupid, it's insulting, pisses me off and who the hell do you think you are anyways.
Speak for yourself! You don't know what every poster is thinking. The audacity to say so do is.......
Yes you did call people stupid, in plural....
Or would that be a "stupid" "dishonest" "vapid" "lie"....
Unless you're suggesting that I believe it because Egyptology says so? That would be stupid.
I'll never learn that you know it all (like you're showing us an obvious truth and how stupid that I don't see it). I don't like your tone....
And probably nothing more than that. If that's good enough for you, fine, far be it for me to call you stupid for being so accepting of what I reject....
Vapid, stupid, dishonest, lie, were words you used for others.
The rest of her posts are simply trollish bile directed at me personally if anyone even cares to follow along.
And now John is confused all of a sudden as well (though to his credit, however small, halfheartedly):
Is your implication of stupidity a term of endearment?...
Though he backtracks acknowledging again it was said about an idea:
Frankly I don't see anything stupid about any one of them [ideas he presents].
But unfortunately the confusion begins again:
In that case whom were you referring to as "stupid"?
And they are the ones who complain people attack them just for disagreeing with them? Pfft. Nonsense.