> Hanslune Wrote:
> So you believe that tools are used once and never
> made again.
There is no evidence that they were - if you have why not produce it. In this case the bowl in Lord Sabu tomb seems to be a unique piece.
> No. What you are doing is speculation.
Yep its speculation just like you are speculating - we knew that at the start of thread - did you just wake up?
> > You have made the claim about Zipf's law being
> > broken many times - I would like to see your
> > research that supports it?
Running from a question - you spend a lot of time doing that.
It simple observation that it breaks
> linguistic law and is not comprehensible. I don't
> need to prove that 2 + 2 = 4.
Actually you do - simply saying something doesn't make it true.I see you have no idea what the law is an you cannot explain how the AE 'broke' it.Typical Cladking lying
What do you want me
> to do hold your hand as you point at the words to
> count them?
Yeah that's exactly what you would do - you would publish a paper that outlying your evidence that the full AE language violates that law - have you done so?
Of course not - it was easier to make the claim wasn't it....lol
Am I supposed to read every word to
> you to prove their are no taxonomic words, no word
> for belief, no word for thought, no word for ramp,
> and no reductionistic words. In other words some
> 90% of our (non-noun) vocabulary can't even be
> translated into Ancient Language!!!!!! Yet
> Egyptologists believe they understand the
> language. They never even noticed ANY of these
> things. I noticed them but only because I came to
> understand how the language works.
A clear example of you making up stuff and not providing support for your claims.
You Sam - its you duty to publish you data and research and show them they are wrong. Are you going to do that? NOPE because you don't know what you are talking about.
> And you know this because an Egyptologist told you
> after he assumed the Pyramid Text was an older
> version of the "book of the dead". His assumption
> is wrong so his conclusion is wrong.
No he is not wrong because you say so - you have to publish a paper that clearly outlines that their theory is wrong - you cannot just state your opinion and expect it to be believed. Will you publish that? NOPE
Your opinion on this is rejected.
> Where did anyone agree it might be a floating oil
It might be it might not - it could be any number of things
> The only thing that is irrational is failing to
> explore the artefacts or hiding them from sight
> when they mentioned.
Well in this case it's sitting in full view in a museum and described in the literature - what else would you expect - do you expect them to mail it to you? lol
"Irrational" is ignoring the
> posts here by individuals who have actually
> explored the nature and characteristics of this
Which posts have I ignored?
"Irrational is speculating and then
> refusing to consider any actual facts and logic.
No Sam it isn't irrational to disagree with your opinions - most people do
> I can be wrong but facts and logic are the stuff
> of my hypotheses.
Nope that the problem you don't use facts and logic - you use belief and wilful disregard for the evidence.
I have great interest here and
> it's obvious Egyptology is not going going to
> contribute one iota to the discussion as they hold
> the original under wraps and refuse to do testing
> on it.
Oh my its conspiracy time now. Why don't you get GH to provide 2 million to x university to conduct an in-depth study of the bowl? That at least would be useful.
Rather than actually earn their pay it's
> easier to just announce it "mustta been a
> ceremonial bowl".
The current theory is that it was a ceremonial bowl versus it mustta been what Cladking said it was...lol