Warwick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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
> >
> [url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10
>
> > 99133,1099141#msg-1099141&v=t]mindlessly
> endorsing
> > her claims[/url].
> >
> > Please be so kind as to show me where I was
> > [i]"mindlessly endorsing her claims"[/i] in
> that
> > post. I simply acknowledged and thanked her for
> > her effort, just as Thanos and Warwick did.
>
>
>
> Not that I didn't appreciate her putting her
> thoughts down in a well presented post, but
>
> unless I'm going either crazy or blind...
>
> Where did I thank her for her effort????
>
>
> It
> > promotes further productive discussion (as well
> as
> > some obvious wasted bandwidth).
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> [url=http://grahamhancock.com/phorum/read.php?1,10
>
> > 99133,1099265#msg-1099265&v=t]this one[/url] 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.
>
>
> Is it?
>
> How many of us post as ourselves?
>
> How many do not?
>
> Warwick


So all anonymous users are now frauds?!

And no one (allegedly) using their own name can be a fraud?!

Where do you get these notions?