R Avry Wilson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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



I'm still waiting to hear how Vyse got into the Boat Pit.

apparently the easiest questions ARE the hardest to answer. Or, is that easiest to ignore?

Warwick