I corrected Barbelo's mistake in thinking
> cladking believed they were stinky footed
> No mistake.
> It's not whether cladking believes that "they"
> were stinky footed bumpkins. It doesn't matter
> whether he is being sarcastic or not.
> My question was why does he place so much emphasis
> (as evidenced in a multitude of posts over the
> years) on:
> (a) a word which is grammatically understood
> and (b) has twisted the meaning of another word
> (secretion) to fit his critical viewpoint, when
> other plausible synonyms could be used.
> Thirdly, the plural "they" does not appear in
> Mercer's translation. The Utterance is directed to
> Unas - singular - but cladking has combined this
> plethora of faulty logic into a myopic and
> questionable viewpoint of Dynastic Egypt. As well,
> he attributes this viewpoint to "Egyptologists".
> Nowhere in the literature have I found any such
> Cladking has built the "stinky footed bumpkins"
> paradigm on a folly of his own but is adamant
> about "author intent."
> Surely, as a learned person yourself, you must
> discern the difference between scholarship and
> mere opinion.
Thanks for the clarification!
I can't speak for cladking (God forbid), so I'll just say that when we encounter the same logical argument in a debate over and over again, long after the evidence seems to be overwhelmingly in favor of one side of the debate, it's easy to slip into the habit of conjuring up a short if not so sweet sound bite as a mechanism to summarize the entire debate. But generalized labels run the risk of invoking other connotations that really aren't intended.
And so along with "stinky footed bumpkins", we also throw around sound bites like "lost civilizations", "advanced technology", "ramps", "magic", "funerary", "translation methods", "primitive", etc. without any clear boundaries for the definitions.
On one hand it's convenient and efficient to use jsuch sound bites, but on the other hand, they risk having darts thrown at them for being accused of implying things they don't actually intended to include.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?