Audrey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why do you guys think that if someone disagrees
> with convention they MUST have their own theory?
> If I disagree with the text of Christ having
> walked on water does that mean I MUST have my own
> theory of what the text means? Can't someone just
> simply disagree and question a supposed fact? This
> is nonsense that one cannot disagree unless they
> have a better idea.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it seems clear to me that it's simply a bully attempt to shut up the challenger -- If the challenger could somehow be convinced that it's necessary to have a counterproposal before challenging something, then maybe there won't be as many challenges and the traditionalists can rest a little easier. What they don't realize is that there is zero logic to back up that notion and very few of us are prone to fall for such a ploy.

As I've said many times, some of us are so busy simply trying to keep track the status quo and challenging much of what we learn there, that there's hardly any time to start from scratch to formulate new hypotheses about what the truth might actually be. It's often the case that you can't begin to build a new house until you remove the old one. Unfortunately, you don't need to build a new house if the old one is intact, but many traditional tenets of Egyptology are falling apart at the seams.