Origyptian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanos5150 Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Origyptian Wrote:
> > -------------------------------------------------------
> > > I never claimed that it's not from the 4th
> > > Dynasty. I said I'm looking for evidence
> > > supporting the claim that it was from the
> > > 4th Dynasty in the first place.
> >
> > We've already been through this with you. This is
> > what you "say", but obviously not what you mean.
>
>
> Yes, we've been through this before: stop trying
> to divine what I'm thinking and take my words on
> their own merit. . . .

Fine, Femano, except when we do so and hold you to what you’ve said, you howl. Then we’re supposed to overlook what you said and charitably second-guess what you meant—and after thousands of your blatantly agenda-led posts, we’re entitled to our doubts.

After all, Doctor Femano, we do not know “with certainty” that you are telling the truth about yourself—and so, by your own stated principles, we are perfectly entitled to “consider the possibility” that you are not.

> The silliness in these discussions is getting out
> of control.



> > You just said you never said it wasn't from
> > the 4th Dynasty yet in the next sentence by
> > direct inference suggest it "might not be".
>
> You don't seem to understand the basic and
> important difference between "is not" and
> "might not". . . .

On the contrary, Doctor Femano, some of us understand very well that your retreat into the modal is an evasion and a hedge.

> In my opinion, . . .

Not interested in your opinion.

M.