Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > If you weren't on the edge of your seat waiting
> > for my reply, you'd have seen that I changed
> > "Baloney" to "Not according to Greg Marouard."
> > within seconds of my initlal post.
> > God help me for attempting to be civil in these
> > discussions.
>
> Oh. I see. So, your malformed notion of civility
> is to fault me for your hasty and
> ill-considered post and for responding to yours a
> good deal less quickly than you did to
> mine. Pardon me if I doubt you have anything to
> teach me on the topic.
>
> As for Marouard, allow me to remind you that your
> track record is one of grossly mispresenting what
> others have written, through prejudice or sheer
> ineptitude.
>
> > Since you claim to be so thorough in your
> > research, you surely must know that there is
> > nothing in Merer's papyrus that says anything
> > about the size and number of stones or boats.
>
> Evasion, red herring.
>
> > That papyrus is simply a record of where they worked
> > and where they slept. Period.
>
> Evasion, spurious reduction. It does not become
> what you would reduce it to simply through your
> adding the magic word “period”.
>
> As should be obvious from my earlier comments, I
> am doing what you lack the competence to do,
> looking at the hieratic text and picking out
> relevant characters and phrases. It is a record of work on
> [broken link omitted].
>
> > No other data is
> > included in the daily log. Tallet simply
> > interprets it to indicate the final phase of G1
> > construction based merely on a reference to "Year
> > 27", and so the presumption is that
> > it might be referring to casing
> > stones, but the papyrus doesn't say that. And so
> > there is no way to rule out a restoration project,
>
> Evasion, irrelevancy. That the building in
> question is G1 and that Merer was in some way
> involved in the work are the relevant
> considerations—while talk of “restoration”
> is unevidenced speculation and nothing but. (You
> really do need reminding of this, don’t you?
> Just because you keep saying it, doesn’t make it
> so.)
>
> > another accessory building associated with a
> > larger monument on Giza,
>
> Femano,
>
> Are you aphasic?
>
> It specifies the pyramid 3ḫt Ḫwfw. See
> above.
>
> > or to even determine with
> > certainty the provenance of that papyrus which
> was
> > found in tatters, mixed in with the rubble.
>
> Evasion, irrelevancy.
>
> An ancient papyrus in less than perfect condition?
> Imagine. Doubtless this invalidates its content.
>
> This being what you say when not complaining that
> it’s too well preserved. Classic
> psychology of the prejudiced mind: damned if you
> don’t, damned if you do. Adorno et al. had this
> one nailed.
>
> > Such circumstantial evidence is not a smoking gun
> > regardless of what you "say it is".
>
> Doctor Femano,
>
> You have persistently and remorselessly
> misrepresented these documents. The evasion is
> blatant. Clearly you feel a need to deny even
> their prima facie character. Now why is that?
>
> M.

[edit: emphasis is mine...]

"Hi Phil,

Sorry we have no idea about the size and number of blocks or the size and the number of boats used...the Merrer's journal is just a sort of "account of the time", with two columns for a single day in order to record where they have worked and where they slept every days. It give us an accurate timing for the stone deliveries and some ideas about the topography and the toponyms in the Memphite area at this time. We have no clear idea about the men average in a team...Considering the casing, actually it's a little too early to be completely affirmative, caution must be exercised. We think about that because the global closure of the port site and the date delivered by the papyri in this final context of occupation, a terminus around the Year 27, could indicate the end of the construction project at Giza...and therefore the laying of the external casing.

Best

Greg"

Where is the "evasion" and "spurious reduction", Stower?
What am I "grossly misrepresenting"?
Where is the "red herring"?
Where's the"irrelevance"," prejudice" and "sheer ineptitude"?

Why hasn't Marouard picked up on those same "characters and phrases" that you claim are so obviously telling?

And yes, I do indeed fault you for incivility.




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 17-Jan-17 02:24 by Origyptian.