> All of which tending to show that you have an
> unusual level of investment in the issue. Why is
"An unusual level of investment in this issue"?? Coming from YOU, Martin Stower? Are you yanking my chain?
Loveritis declares ""In other words, it seems as though the book is a dud." based on a review, and fully accepting the authority and credentials of the reviewer, and to you that is OK.
But I come on and make three or four posts questioning that and it is NOT OK? I am "invested" here?
You can't even think straight anymore can you?
This Vyse issue is central to your emotional core, and it's about to be blown wide open again. The first salvo comes before the book is even available to the public, from an established critic of Scott's work. You and Loveritis jump on that and hope the issue is closed, the debate shut down?
In the age of Amazon and Tripadvisor, you think ONE review from someone no one can describe as unbiased on these matters is going to be lorded on here by all and sundry as the definitive word, not to be questioned? One blogger decides it for us all doe he?
Not in my world, buster. I'll judge for myself and not go on the word of a third party. You evidently will, providing that third party is on your "side" of the argument.
Where's your empiricism there? Where's your dedication to the facts? Where's your desire to see something for yourself, to see the evidence first hand? Out the window, along with your objectivity.
The blogger knows the importance of getting in there first, he knows that a lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its pants on. That's why he went out of his way to produce a lengthy critique of a book he found completely "uninteresting". Mmmm. A bit like you and the boys on here, criticising the book on here for the best part of the last year when you haven't even seen it. At least he can claim to have read it.
The first salvo has been fired in this battle, from the usual and predictable orthodox quarters. If that's the worst this blogger can do, I think some big guns - like Mr Bauval - better wheel themselves out pretty quickly to try to rubbish Scott and suppress this dangerous book before anyone with an open mind gets a hold of it.
But this isn't "alternative" history against traditional history, this is about mainstream history, so the standard prejudice against Scott here won't stand up. He's not promoting a "far out" theory, he's trying to establish some facts in a murky corner of Egyptology.
I find it interesting, but no Mr Stower, I'm not "invested" here in any intellectual or emotional sense of the word. I can take it or leave it. You, on the other hand, can't take it and won't leave it, so I suggest you put your tin helmet on, gird your loins, grit your teeth and prepare for a long war.
Good luck sir!