> Well, I'm certainly screaming 'dyke'.
Be careful where you do that.
> And I don't know how cool dykes are, but Merer
> apparently thought the dyke was pretty important.
> And it's not so clear that he though G1 was nearly
> as important.
Simple principle which fails to penetrate the bone: most people do not labour the blindingly obvious.
> So far, Merer's link to the "construction
> materials at G1" argument apparently hangs on an
> entry in the log stating that on Day B.27, at
> the end of his day's trip, Merer pulled up to
> "Akhet-Khufu" with a boat "loaded with stone"
> where he spent the night and then headed upstream
> (toward Tura) the next morning. So when were
> the stones unloaded? Merer's log says nothing
> about unloading any stones there, doing any work
> there, or meeting with anyone there, and yet this
> is the one thing that some people are grasping as
> evidence that Khufu built G1 in the 3rd millennium
The “grasping” in the case is your drooling idiot’s counter-proposal, that they carried the stone from Tura to Akhet-Khufu and then carried it back again. (Point of information: there is no mention of their stopping at She-Khufu on the return journey.)
Care to specify the “some people” doing the “grasping”? Seeing as how you have carelessly imputed this to anyone disagreeing with you.
> Forget the fact that such a recorded stop could be
> an artifact among the many other enigmas,
> contradictions, and apparent omissions in that
> incomplete log.
That’s not a fact. It’s not established, it’s not agreed upon, or any other description or definition of a fact. All it is is another of your idle speculations, with no evidential or argumentative status.
As for “the many other enigmas, contradictions, and apparent omissions”: these are serious charges. Where have you proven them? All I’ve seen are examples of your strictly remedial miscomprehension.
> Forget that the log was found at el Jarf, about
> 120 miles across land from Cairo which suggests it
> might not be an original but, rather could very
> well be a scribe's duplicate that contains
> transcription errors.
And what warrants the “suggests” and the “could very well”? You were asked to explain this and you gave no answer:
“What makes a copy more likely to travel? The missing step in your argument.”
Of course there is no such step. This is merely another of your idle speculations: an ersatz for evidence or argument.
> Forget that other statements in that log seem
> logically impossible (e.g., the same one-way trip
> on 2 consecutive days).
But you’re not suggesting forgery, of course.
And you don’t know what “logically impossible” means, so don’t use the phrase: it offends those of us who do.
Enough comment on this liar’s trash.