Martin Stower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > Martin Stower Wrote:>
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > > I did read your previous post, three times. And
> > > > other than invoking the question of whether Rowe
> > > > corresponds to Perring, taking issue with whether
> > > > Roth proposes a quadrant pattern vs. a bilateral
> > > > pattern, questioning what is on the east wall, and
> > > > rendering your own opinion about Audrey's
> > > > credibility, you haven't cited any specific facts
> > > > about Roth's thesis that invalidates the logic of
> > > > Audrey's main conclusion that Roth's thesis is
> > > > essentially pareidolia, contrived to fit the
> > > > traditional funerary paradigm, and that invoking
> > > > changes in work crews and re-assigning the same
> > > > work crew to different sides is able to
> > > > accommodate just about any hypothesis and doesn't
> > > > validate Roth's hypothesis as "fact" that
> > > > precludes any other possibility. So I had asked if
> > > > you knew of anything specific about Roth's thesis
> > > > that invalidates Audrey's perspective of those paint marks.
> > >
> > > Which part of “go to source and check” did you
> > > not understand?
> > >
> > > I’m not going to spoonfeed you, Doctor.
> > >
> > > M.
> >
> > Fair enough. And until you do decide to belly up
> > and inform the readers here otherwise, I'll take
> > that as an indication that you have no specific
> > fact you can cite that proves Audrey's main
> > hypothesis incorrect.
>
> So, let’s get this straight, Doctor Femano. Audrey’s
> presentation is taken to be correct by
> default, absent my producing a detailed
> refutation of it. You recognise no
> responsibility whatsoever to carry out your
> own checks, before mindlessly endorsing her claims.

Please be so kind as to show me where I was "mindlessly endorsing her claims" in that post. I simply acknowledged and thanked her for her effort, just as Thanos and Warwick did. It promotes further productive discussion (as well as some obvious wasted bandwidth).



> this one is not enough for you.
>
> Doubtless these are the new, higher standards I
> keep hearing about.
>
> Thank you for playing your silly games. You make
> it unnecessary for me to point out what a fraud
> you are. We may continue as we were, discussing
> the issues and not personalities.
>
> M.

Yes, it's obvious who's playing the fraud here.