Thanos5150 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Origyptian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > You keep
> > saying I've lied, twisted, misrepresented, but I
> > never see you actually quote specifically where
> > I've done so.
>
> I really can't stand threaded view, but out of
> morbid curiosity I switched over to see what post
> of mine you were responding to since you once
> again chop it out which is this:
> HERE.
>
> Read again what Origyptian has said above. He
> replies to a post where I specifically quote an
> instance of him lying, the same kind of lie I note
> he has told several times before which he was
> called out with equal veracity on those as well,
> yet chops out the very post he is responding to
> quoting him lying and claims, yet once again, that
> "I [Origyptian] never see you actually quote
> specifically where I have done so [lied]".
>
> WTF? Lol. I couldn't make this stuff up if I
> tried. Yeah, you're a real "honest Joe" alright.
> And if this is the guy some of you prostrate your
> honor to defend, what does this say about you?
>
> Court is adjourned.
>
> Oh, wait. And if someone needs an example of me
> quoting a specific example of him
> misquoting/misrepresenting someone,
> something else he "fails to ever see", that would
> be
> HERE from just 2 days ago.

This forum really is a fascinating microsm of an attempt to communicate between different perceptual sets. That people today from very different backgrounds can so thoroughly misinterpret the comments of their contemporaries due to false presumptions in context while inserting their own personal perceptual filters and amplifiers demonstrates pretty clearly (to me at least) how virtually impossible it can be to begin to attempt the far more gargantuan task of gleaning what the ancients were thinking 4500 years ago from a vastly different cultural context.

Thanos, you said "Day after day you misrepresent what others say", and to prove your point you cite two examples - one from yesterday and one from...December 2015? But ok, let's look at them....

Your first example is from yesterday when I used the word "many"...

Apparently, you don't realize that "many" is a subjective term, like "few", "nice", "pretty" etc. How you can possibly get unhinged at the use of the word "many" is anyone's guess.

Based on my recollection of those Baalbek discussions over a year ago, including the posts themselves as well as all the PM'ing going on, I still contend that those excavations made it more clear to "many" at GHMB that the Romans had little involvement in that "quarry" (and by association, the Sanctuary) than we previously thought. If you disagree that it was "many", then disagree; so what? Does that make any difference at all to whether the Romans had anything to do with those blocks? Attacking me just because I considered it to be "many" people is completely absurd.

Considering that maybe a whopping 8 people post 80% of the comments in any given discussion, if 3 or 4 people agree with a position, I consider that to be "many". If you disagree with that, fine, omit the comment. Why on earth are you (and a couple others here) making such a big deal about such an obviously pedantic issue of hanging on the word "many"? As if you don't do exactly the same thing when some of you are so quick to point out what you believe other GHMB readers think about this or that. You might be concerned about whether other people believe what you believe, but I am not concerned about whether others share my perspective. I only care to know what other people believe and to share my perspective with others, because when we communicate our perspectives, we insert information into the discussion so that we each can further evolve our own perspective on a subject. It's the same reason we read books and articles.

Regarding your second example, from 2015...

If you have observed that "Day after day" I misrepresent what people say, then why did you need to go back to Dec. 2015 for your 2nd example? Nevertheless, let's consider that example.

You start out quoting a single phrase in a Dec. 7, 2015 reply to you where I asked "...why are you so adamant to give the Romans credit for those huge megaliths?" You then go on a diatribe in which you seem to think I forgot that you gave other previous cultures credit for building at Baalbek before the Romans.

However, it's fascinating that your "...why are you so adamant..." quote is the 2nd half of a sentence which in its entirety clearly shows my acknowledgement that, "You, too, are agreeing that the 'The Phoenicians and Greeks also built at Baalbek before the Romans', so why are you so adamant to give the Romans credit for those huge megaliths?" So I obviously did not miss the fact that you previously had given credit to earlier cultures.

So then why did I ask you that question? One quick look at the previous 2 posts in that thread reveals the answer. On Dec. 4, 2015 I made the statement "It just seem so obvious to me that the Romans had very little, if anything, to do with Baalbek." to which you replied with "No, nothing at all. Except for all this:..." which was followed by a signature photo bomb including image after image of the Sanctuary with its megalithic foundation and columned structures on top of that foundation. Was I mistaken when I interpreted "all this" to actually mean "ALL this", or what I expected to parse out which part of those photos you included in your use of the word "all"? Was your "all this" a "deliberately misleading lie" or could it perhaps simply be a bit of harmless hyperbole? Do you see me going medieval on you for using "all" even though I realized afterward that you didn't really mean "all" but rather meant "...Except for the columnar structures that were later added onto that otherwise far more massive and likely older megalithic foundation that was put there by earlier cultures"? But where is your clue in that post that reveals that you don't really mean "all" this? Or was "all" a typo just as you called it a "typo" when my recent use of "many" turned into your "most"?

And yet you claim I'm the one with deficient communication skills?

Clearly, your "all this..." post signaled to me that your answer to my Dec 4 question is that the Romans were responsible for "all" of that construction which was at odds with your earlier comment, and so I accurately quoted your earlier comment and asked you why you were now suddenly so "adamant" about giving Romans that credit. I see no misrepresentation, lie, or misquoting on my part.

Meanwhile, was it too much effort for you to civilly insert a simple clarification if you thought I misinterpreted (or more accurately, misunderstood) your obviously ambiguous photo bomb? Was I supposed to recall your previous post about Gilgamesh 2 weeks earlier and relate it to your ambiguous photo bomb and assume what you said previously still applies today even though you didn't draw that connection in the current post and, instead, claimed the Romans were reponsible for "all" the construction we see in those photos?

If you recall every single discussion over thousands of posts we read over the years and recall who said what, who believes what, and when they said it, then God bless you because you are gifted. Unfortunately, we (or at least I) don't remember every one of your specific positions on every single issue. Sorry, but that's the reality. Unfortunately, you might need to reorient readers (at least me) when an issue touches upon a discussion that occurred in the past. Perhaps I should apologize for that, it doesn't seem unreasonable to include a reminder that your past position still applies and shouldn't be considered a contradiction to your current post rather than going medieval on someone just because they took your words on their own merit rather than having to remember your specific personal position on every topic at any point in time and make the assumption all prior opinions still apply today.

The record shows that I very clearly acknowledged, even quoted you directly, that you thought previous cultures were responsible for at least part of Baalbek (I can't help but wonder why you deliberately cut out that first half of the sentence when you cited my comment). I obviously interpreted your "Except all this..." to represent your current position since you said "all" without drawing any distinction in those photos.

You make assumptions of what conclusions the reader should draw from your posts and then take umbrage when they interpret your ambiguities differently than you intended rather than specifically stating your point up front when posting an image.

You did the same thing in the column discussion over a year ago when I suggested that perhaps the Romans didn't make all of those igneous columns but rather reused them either from other ancient Egyptian structures or found them ready made in the eastern desert quarries. Your rebuttal? -- you went into photo bomb mode to show column after column that's installed in Roman structures, as if that somehow constitutes proof of who made those columns even though you surely knew that the Romans were well known for introducing spolia into their construction projects, early and often.

And likewise this week when you posted gneiss statues, granite boxes, etc., apparently as evidence of provenance but without you offering sufficient evidence to justify any hard claim of such provenance. And then you get mad when any of us misinterpret your intent.

Meanwhile, any claim that I misquoted or misrepresented you in that thread is bogus. In the very least, it was caused by your ambiguous post back in 2015 (!) and your difference in subjective use of "many". That you don't see it that way only shows the clear dissonance in our respective communication filters. Why that causes you to obsessively attack and insult, I can only guess.




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 19-Apr-17 20:42 by Origyptian.