> Great, isn’t it? He complains (falsely, trying
> to sidetrack the thread again?) that a rebuke to
> his parading his fantasies as something more
> (even, as here, as established facts) is a
> “personal attack”—but, it’s OK for him to
> paint the entirety of Egyptian archaeology as
> “centuries of massaging the evidence”. Some
> might take that very personally.
Yes, the difference is that accusing someone of "parading" their "fantasies" is indeed a personal insult when that person was solicited to post his comment and what he posted was either facts or his own acknowledged opinion.
Criticizing the methods of an overall disciplines is not a personal attack on any individual. If I voice my opinion that there is some real quackery going on in Egyptology, that's not a personal attack on any specific person.
> So, the precondition of “productive
> discussions” is accepting your fantasies on what
> the facts are—and you fault me for identifying
> what you’re doing as parading your fantasies as
> something more?
> What you’re trying to pull here is
> gnorance]argument from ignorance[/url] at
> best—but compounded with a claim that you have
> “hard” evidence (which you have not deigned to
> specify here). Again, Lee asked for evidence.
> Where is it? What is it?
Ignore my posts Stower. I'm posting exactly what I want to post.
I'm not issuing personal insults, I'm only stating facts and voicing my opinion.
I'm sorry if that bothers you to the point of feeling like you need to insult me again, but you are going to have to deal with it.
For the umpteenth time, the evidence is the [i][u]monuments themselves[/u][/i] -- no way the Dynastics could have produced that stuff, ergo, it was created earlier (unless someone has a plausible scenario for it being created afterward).
Not stop trying to twist it into anything else.
[i]How can any of us ever [u]know[/u], when all we can do is [b]think[/b]?[/i]