> Pleaze point to where I said "dragged" in the post
> you are responding to.
You do not get to define the topic of the thread.
> The point of the topic, as ridiculous as it
> sounds, was to disprove that an inclined plane IS
> a Ramp.
You are playing another word game.
It doesn't matter whether you use the word 'ramp', "acclivity", "grade", "incline", or "slope" you believe in highly superstitious people dragging stones in the name of their "God" the king And I do not. The point of the threads is that Steve Clayton doesn't believe in this discredited nonsense either. The fact that Egyptology refuses to admit it's discredited isn't relevant and no matter what word you choose to dodge it your belief is founded on nothing but interpretation and assumption. Steve Clayton's idea are founded in logic and have evidential support. There is no logic in doing anything the hard way and this goes 6 1/2 million times over for the largest work project in human history.
We don't use ramps or inclined planes to build skyscrapers and neither did the people you say you hold in high regard in one breath and then in the next say they believed in magic, many gods and were ignorant of modern science. Just like the ramps you want to run uphill and down you want it both ways. You want to talk about "inclined plane technology" as though mere words can make dragging stones noble and easy enough a bumpkin can do it.
Nobody can walk much less drag a stone on a funicular path. It is too slippery, probably too steep, and if you tried you'd get hit by a car or a henu boat. I don't care what you call the path of a funicular but I know nobody used it as a "ramp" to drag stones. You don't.