> Martin Stower Wrote:
> > All of which tending to show that you have an
> > unusual level of investment in the issue. Why is
> > this?
> "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
> 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
> 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!
Thanks for showing us how not invested you are.
Yes, Sean, I’ve put the work in on the topic—whereas you purport to be just some bloke on a message board, who’s
“withholding his judgement”. Do try to keep in character.
“This Vyse issue is central to your emotional core, and it’s about to be blown wide open again.”
See what I mean?
Perhaps you’d like also to explain the “blown wide open again” (my emphasis). In several years of trying, all Scott Creighton blew was his own trumpet—and now you’re doing it for him. You’ve even got the huffing and puffing down pat.
I look forward to your cogent comments on the review you find so objectionable. Doubtless you are working on them at this very moment, which is why we have yet to see any.
Are you under the impression that Loveritis (sic: Loveritas) and I are relying on Jason’s review? If so, you’ve forgotten quite a lot, including what you wrote quite recently here:
“Martin, on my own experience alone, I would regard YOU as the foremost expert in the defence of Vyse.”
Anyone interested may see that I’ve already amplified a number of the points raised by Jason:
As for the OP by Loveritas, it is, of course, the latest in a series based on multiple sources.
By the way, I was sorry to hear that you experienced identity theft in 2011. It was wise of you to take precautions in advance, by registering as LonelyAngel in 2007.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 26-Sep-16 20:14 by Martin Stower.