> I'm not saying any such thing. I have stated that
> accusing a dynamiter of subtlety is a stretch. I
> don't admire Vyse's methodology at all. It's the
> methodology being applied to the question of
> Vyse's veracity that I find Bankrupt
Vyse's motives shouldn't be questioned? Is this taboo? Is he beyond reproach?
> WE?? A little over the top with that 'WE'
Then who were you including when you said "We"?
> If you are going to defend a theory you must first
> realise where that theory came from. There where
> enough questions of his OCT that a situation was
> created where many people thought that tweaking
> the theory to deal with those questions, would
> create a more palatable theory.
Have no idea why you bring this up other than maybe you think all alts subscribe to the OCT. I'm fully aware of Scott's position on the OCT. So what?
> But the parrots all failed to include the prime
> denominator ....the Beliefs of the AEs and the
> role of the King within them.
Because the parrots aren't following the zombies who believe the assumptions Egyptologists have made. Sounds like you belittle anyone who does not conform to the establishment.
> Scott came up with that theory that most appealed
> to the 'anyone but the AE's' crowd. But is was
> Robert who did the real work for him.
"We" know who did what work. Scott tried to verify the OCT. You twist it to mean it was only self serving PR work.
> 100's of insulting posts??? Maybe just maybe that
> n umber in 15 years
Over 1200 posts, how many would you estimate to be nothing more than insults? Lets estimate on the low side, say 20%. That would be a conservative 240 which is more than 100, making it plural at "hundreds".
> I am however confident that I have received
> exponentially more than I have given.
> Thank you in advance for at least one more
No, your perceptions are not correct.