Scott Creighton wrote:

> MS: You’re the one selectively forgetting it, Scott: your
> conclusion merely reiterates the presuppositions you’ve imposed
> on the evidence.
>
> SC: No. I see the extant evidence..
>
> MS: . . . through the prism of your presuppositions.
>
> SC: Even if this were true I am doing no different to what
> ortho folks do all the time.

The derisive label confirming (what was evident anyway), that you are operating from a position of prejudice . . .

> Consensus opinion presupposes
> Seti would have had the Abydos King List relief painted and
> this presupposition is based on the evidence from other
> temples.

Scott. We are being very patient with you.

You were shown a relief from Abydos . . .

[commons.wikimedia.org]

If you can’t see the identity in style, you should (and this is the polite version) shut up about this now:

[commons.wikimedia.org]

> It never occurs to them that Seti simply might simply
> have wished to stamp his own artistic ideas on the Abydos King
> List – he might not have wished to “tarnish” the names of his
> God forebears thereby explaining the complete lack of paint in
> this part of the temple.
>
> Presuppositions are made by the ortho folks all the time.

. . . and questioned by them.

> MS: Claiming to see things “objectively” while everyone
> else is “biased” is a typical trait of the dogmatist and the
> crank.
>
> SC: I’ve often thought that about the ortho folks!

. . . while showing with every other word that it applies to yourself.

(Including the word ‘ortho’, comment as above.)

> MS: Truth is, Scott, recognising one’s presuppositions
> and looking at them critically is the first step towards
> letting the “evidence” make the blindest of difference.
>
> You’ve made yours immune to refutation by refusing to see even
> that you have them.
>
> SC: More babble-twaddle from the pen of Mr Stower. [. . .]

This exemplifying your nuanced understanding of the issue.

[handwaving snipped]

> SC: I could well be wrong here – I will check. If so then I
> will revoke. So, tell us all then – what IS your position on
> the paint argument?

I don’t have one: I’m in motion.

Watch this space.

> SC: The burden of proof then is on YOU and Greg to prove
> this was so.
>
> MS: Oh. I see. Your position is the default. Everything else
> must be “proven”.
>
> Consider your example of a relief which still bears some traces
> of paint. What makes you think there was ever any more? Why not
> the principle you apply to the List relief: no paint now, no
> paint ever?
>
> You accept in this case that there was once paint where there
> is none now. So what removed it? What would have happen if that
> same agency acted for longer, or more intensely?
>
> Do tell us.
>
> SC: If I walked into a room and found a completely white wall
> on one side and the wall opposite was coloured red with a few
> pockets of white still showing through it is reasonable to take
> the view that both walls were once white and that some red
> paint has flaked off one of the walls revealing its original,
> unpainted state.

Which is no answer to the question asked.

> MS: This just to show your nonexistent grasp of a basic
> principle of rationality: parity of reasoning.
>
> Or, to put it simply, your double standard.
>
> SC: There’s no double-standard from me. It is your singular
> refusal to accept the very simple suggestion that Seti might
> not have wished the wall of his ancestors “tarnished” by paint.

Scott. I’ve explained this to you before. There is no obligation on me (or anyone else) to accept your personal fantasies about how the ancient Egyptians did things.

> SC: And Pharaohs are known to have expressed their personal
> preferences. This may simply be another example of such
> personal expression on Seti’s part.

As may also be the orthography. Your self-contradiction here is so glaring that even you should see it.

> SC: Let’s have your EVIDENCE that PROVES, unequivocally,
> the King’s List relief at Abydos once was painted and that all
> its paint fell off.
>
> MS: Let’s have your evidence which “proves” unequivocally that
> it didn’t.
>
> SC: I am not about to prove a negative. [. . .]

Why not, Scott? You’re the one claiming the unusual. You’re the one claiming that (here and here only) Seti did it differently, contra other evidence from Abydos. Quote: ‘Seti might not have wished the wall of his ancestors “tarnished” by paint.’ Quote: ‘This may simply be another example of such personal expression on Seti’s part.’

Which puts the burden on you.

(But why the reluctance to just find out?)

> SC: I did not gaffe in hosting an image of Vyse’s journal that
> was corrupted through reduced resolution. That was someone
> else.

Consummate hypocrisy. Using the image as you did was your choice and your responsibility.

[handwaving snipped]

> SC: Trust me – I wasn’t even trying. And it’s not arrogance -
> it’s simply that I have no respect for your position in this
> particular discussion.

My point again.

> SC: Not so quickly – again:

Not so quickly? Let me remind you, Scott: my challenge preceded your questions, as anyone can verify:

[www.grahamhancock.com]

You snipped it and evaded it, so don’t go pretending that you have priority here.

You’ve talked a good fight about looking at THE EVIDENCE.

Let’s see you do it.

[SNIP]

> Answer the questions.

The answer as before:

> MS: No, Scott. Let’s cut the the point in my post which
> you snipped and evaded. There seems to be more than one
> instance of Aa1 in the List relief:
>
> [commons.wikimedia.org]
>
> Repeat: get looking!
>
> SC: Do you actually have a point or even a question?

You’ve had a lot to say on the question.

You act like you know something.

WORK IT OUT.

M.