> Thank you for posting these links - I stand by every word in
> In fact, they were well worth reposting and I'm glad they have
> once more seen the light of day. You might do yourself some
> good to read and re-read them and take them to heart.
> You yourself have quite a bit of... let's call it "history"...
> too in terms of posting, going back many years (and not all of
> it happy):
Thank you for your interest in my ancient history. I’m sure that Graham in particular will appreciate your digging up this one, now that he’s effectively retracted the retraction he made so much fuss of at the time — an action tending to show that I was right in the first place in doubting that his change of mind on the Vyse forgery question was very deep or permanent. (The use made of my apology lived down to expectation also, which is why you found it where you found it.)
I apologised for a moment of carelessness. This is supposed to prove what, exactly? That I’m a really bad person? I can change my mind on things I’ve said, whereas you, by contrast, are brazenly unrepentant of your history and policy of squalid ad hominem and personal insult.
This is scoring you points? In your dreams, Lonely.
You’re digging up stuff from 15 years ago? As pitiful as when Creighton did it.
And of course, you instantly assume that I was entirely in the wrong in the case. That, Lonely, is a telling commentary on you. The troublemaker in the case was someone who engaged in vicious personal abuse, in the context (note) of an unmoderated newsgroup. I’m sure you’d find much in common with him.
> etc etc etc
Having seen that your featured examples are equivocal at best, we may forget the etceteras.
> Nevermind. We are, none of us, perfect.
Some of us, however, have the honesty and balls to appear under our own names.
> As for your actual purpose for posting the links - to goad me
> into a slanging match when you know that someone is waiting in
> the wings ready to pounce the moment I criitcise you in any way
> - well, that will have to wait for another day, perhaps another
Is that some kind of a threat, Lonely? Feel naked without you sole argumentative resource: insult? Is the nasty mans making you think?
Your insight into my reasons for doing things isn’t worth electrons.
> You should note however I have personally praised Warwick just
> recently, despite his unyielding orthodoxy as I have come to
> respect him greatly over the years and miss his regular posts.
> As for the others I praised - Scott, Gary Osborn, Graham
> Hancock and Robert Bauval - you can call it "hero worship" if
> you like, though that would pale into insignificance compared
> to EyeofHorace's hero worship of you (which I take it you do
> not object to?).
Is hero worship the one category of your understanding? Evidently so, given your incomprehension of EoH’s reasoned support.
I’m really not interested in your adventures in fandom.
> Without giving away any spoilers, Scott's article has convinced
> me that Vyse put together a composite forgery of what he
> thought "should" appear on the wall of Campbell's chamber *if*
> it was going to establish his much needed connection to Khufu.
> Nothing - absolutely nothing - you have written on this thread
> has persuaded me otherwise.
And again we have this entirely dogmatically: not a scrap of evidence or argument offered. Which is probably wise in its way: if you can’t see through Creighton’s rubbish, you lack the capacity to follow or reproduce the simplest argument and would only make a worse fool of yourself if you tried.
Am I going to say that you believe Creighton purely because he’s your authority figure of the moment? Yes, I am.
> Anyway, good luck adjusting to the new realities of today.
> Because it is today that you have to deal with, and things have
Oh, so, back to the lordly condescension and ex cathedra pronouncements, is it? Funny how some things never change. Here you are, still furiously working the defence mechanisms to keep the big disappointment at bay.
Post Edited (26-May-14 09:51)