> R Avry Wilson Wrote:
> > Dear readers,
> > I am not willing to get into yet another
> > philosophical diatribe with this poster, mainly
> > because his overall points are merit-less.
> > However, I will comment on the following quote
> > from Sam Petry, aka 'cladking':
> Absolutely right and I would add that his singular
> delusion in believing he is 'doing science' is so
> off the mark that his 'idea' has become a monument
> to how to do something so wrong it actually
> becomes comedy.
> One also must note that he refuses to write up his
> 'study' or 'research' or anything that would back
> up his irrational claim.
> When once asked why he felt he knew what 'author's
> intent was'
> he replied
"they didn't think like us, form language like us, seek to explain the natural world like us, fear death like us, laugh like us, drink too much beer like us......And I know this because, they did not drag tombs up ramps"
(EDIT: <--- this is a non sequitur, for anyone interested)
What else is fascinating is that Mr Petry ('cladking') chose to reply only to one of your three posts, the two missed being one's where you amply demonstrate his errors and faulty research capabilities. The one he replied to was:
(Hanslune wrote): "You don't mention why you've completely ignore all later 50+ years of research that has gone on since he published.
Why is that?
You once stated the reason you didn't look at the later research was because it was to expensive to purchase and Mercer's allowed you to do your 'research' by running key words through the online database.
And his opening response was:
"('Mr Petry/'cladking' wrote:) As many people here know I rarely respond to this poster because his posts usually contain misstatements of fact, confusions, and various non sequiturs. I would respond anyway except these errors are couched in insults and my response will be mischaracterized as well. I could write a book just straightening out his questions."
I have scrutinized your replies in this thread, Hanslune, and I am confident in saying you make no 'misstatements of fact' (only present them), are in no way 'confusing' (erudite with the info), and presented no 'non sequiturs' (provided correlative arguments; showed direct correspondence between Mr Petry's note on ramps with reference to a discussion of ramps). Apparently, Mr Petry does not know what 'non sequitur' means. Furthermore, I cannot find any insults as claimed by Mr Petry. Lastly, Mr Petry was keen on borrowing my earlier shtick of 'not normally responding to such-and-such poster'. I suppose I can let it slide. In any event, what an odd response by Mr Petry in how he viewed your post(s).
But that is only the beginning. Sadly, none of it compels me to waste more time commenting. The point of this thread remains steadfast: Mercer is not the best source, so by extension, any attempt to (re-)translate the Pyramid Texts by merely drawing from Mercer instead of the original hieroglyphs triples down on the extraction of errors. By continuing to think such a method is pure is most assuredly misguided.
Best Regards, and thanks for your input,
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 20-Apr-17 05:48 by R Avry Wilson.