Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And if I didn't actually "say is in so many
> words", then why did you put "Egyptologist"
> in quotes to imply I actually said "no
> 'Egyptologist' contradicted Reisner" when I never
> said that? Not even once, let alone "post after
> post".

Dear Philip,

Your ability to follow a conversation and stick to a simple, logical flow is so bloody disturbing and frustrating that you draw out harsh criticism of both your grammatical gymnastics and obtuse argumentation with galactic ease. Stop jumping around like a small child in your attempts to micromanage these tendential tangents. It's no wonder Martin doesn't let up on you (nor some others) because your stubbornness invites it.

You are so determined not to admit an error you'd rather (subliminally?) continue to post pointless debate content no matter how absurd it is. You most certainly did both say and imply Reisner's opinion stood unchallenged for sixty years.

Now SHUT UP. Don't come back with a typical, "Duh, where'd I say that?" "Did I say that?" "I did not!" feigned, innocent BS.

I don't know what's worse: You're inane responses to the charge(s), or the utter irrelevancy of Reisner's opinion being a mold to all of Egyptology, or, as we may guess blindly, that it somehow has a bearing on the 'forgery' question. You're like a lawyer who knows his client is 100% guilty, yet digs out fanatical twirls of invented 'evidence' to try to get the client off because, by law, you must give him/her the right of a defense. (I fully expect you to go off on a debate over law practices rather than see I've given an EXAMPLE.)

(snip diatribe on your tangent Reisner argument)

> It's interesting that you omitted that
> pesky detail (pg.83 of Lehner '85):
>
>

"the mother image fullfills a distinct
> function in the Egyptian belief of a life after
> death--- it holds out the promise of immortality"
> (Ibid., 174). In effect, the king's rebirth
> invokes the image of a return to, and passage
> through, the mother.40

First, you have no understanding of the mother image, nor what he is actually saying here. This would require an understanding of AE symbolism. Second, your 'pesky' detail is not 'pesky', nor is it contextual to the provenance of Hetepheres. See what I mean? You're poking around to elongate your impression of Reisner but can't even stay relevant to your own irrelevancy.


> Regarding your reference to Romer, does he
> actually deny or even express doubt about anything
> in Reisner's narrative? Does he deny that G7000x
> was her tomb even though the alabaster box was
> empty? Does he discuss Verner, Aldred, Münch's
> "funerary deposit" hypothesis, Lehner's '85
> rebuttal to Reisner, or even cite any of them in
> his bibilography? He doesn't deny Reisner's claim
> of the family tree, and so I doubt he acknowledges
> Lehner's alternate interpretation (and Edwards'
> acknowledgement) of "Mother" as it applies to the
> afterlife.

Sadly, there gets a point where there's no other way to say something: Who *(**%^$%! cares? None of this Pied Piper discursion is relevant. The flute you employ is satiated with mucous, giving off whiffs of air in place of expected clear notes. Ffft, fft, goes Philip, trying to blow out another chorus. You can check the volume or peer down the tube to inspect the problem all you want. No amount of self-assessment is going to perform a song of logic for us. Alas.

> He called it "ingeneous", not "fanciful" and not
> "speculation". That imbues credibility, not doubt.

Trying to redefine what or how a synonym is or how its applied is clearly not a tool in your set. And who cares about tearing down individual words in someone's narrative? This is more failed flute ffft, i.e. useless semantics.

And I respond here only because your tactics are worthy of fly-swatting. In other words, what you think is content added to a debate is nothing other than a desire to be combative as opposed to conversational. And it is gruesomely tiresome, Philip.

Get it: The massive thread on this topic is focused on a forgery claim. Put simply, there is no forgery. It is a silly, preposterous notion being flatulently redistributed by those who refuse to see it for what it is ... even in opposition to our host, who at first inserted it into his early work, but when faced with the evidence was unequivocal in his acceptance. You and others deny first-hand witness accounts of the cartouche ... why? Do you need someone to poke your forehead with an index finger?

Anyways.

Play your flute all you want. It is better to just ignore your posts until such time as you can own up to being honest with us and yourself. Saying 'sorry, I got that wrong' or 'I have reflected on my previous view and ...' won't make you look bad (though you may fear so), it will make you much more impressive.

Regards,
Avry