> Audrey, if you are simply being deliberately
> willfully ignorant (or even if arising completely
> sub-consciously) then no one will ever be able to
> answer your undecipherable contorted question.
What's the matter Corpie, you sound angry. Was it being wrong about what "cartouche" meant? Or was it being wrong about the order of translation of Rosetta? Or was it you don't know who Bankes is? Or was it being corrected by a woman?
I reported a series of historic events. Judging by your over-reaction to it, I'd say your fragile ego doesn't like to be informed.
Just because YOU don't understand the question, doesn't mean it's not understandable.
Would it help you if it's put to a cartoon?
> What do you mean by "evidence"?
> What do you mean by "conclusion"?
> (e.g. Do you mistakenly think Rosellini declared
> Khufu the definite proven builder of G1?)
> Please describe as clearly and concisely as you
> can, what those are?
If I have to describe that to you, you probably shouldn't be on this board.
You might try a dictionary.
> > > You know already the key to deciphering the
> > > hieroglyphs was Thomas Young and J F
> > Champollion's
> > > work on the Rosetta stone.
> >I know that was not the key.
> Wow! You should give presentations and book
> promotions on those Conspiracy Theory nutter radio
> programmes. Please consider!
Where did you pull that out of? I didn't imply a conspiracy. Conspiracy has nothing to do with historic events, in this case anyways.
> Young did some, Champollion most of all.
> Bankes didn't decipher anything. But if true it
> was good logic with some intuition.
Did I say Bankes deciphered anything? No I didn't. I know you're attention span is short, but try to take it slowly in baby steps....one sentence at a time.... focus
> What else is there but thoughts or sensations that
> are interpreted as thoughts?
There are thoughts that remain thoughts for lack of evidence. Such as your thoughts on the history of hieroglyph translation.
> Loved to picture thanks. If Jon E sees that he
> will likely cum in his pants. The lines it would
> be hard enough to make it a giant rectangular
> block but to taper to precison on all four sides
> is exquisite! The shack looks reasonably comefy
A totally crass/tasteless/crude/gross/stupid statement that reeks of envy and has absolutely nothing to do with the subject.
> Sorry cut the rest, I offer my greatest
> apologyies, I got bored.
Here's another boring fact that you could learn from....
The dedication plaques on the Philae Obelisk are not a translation of the hieroglyphs on the obelisk. That the names Cleopatra & Ptolemy are on the plaques does not mean they would be on the obelisk. Yet Bankes and Champollion assumed they were.
> But, it is super important for anyone even
> considering that a non AE dynastic orgin of the
> culture that build G1 according to the best CT
> celebritywannabe in the world ... then why Vyse
> would DO THAT ... (pretending for the excercise
> that he did!?)
The above makes absolutely no sense, almost incoherent.
I can barely discern that you are asking a question, maybe.
Do you really expect that I would give a thoughtful civil answer to anything contained in your disgusting post?