Martin Stower wrote:

> Origyptian wrote:
>
> > Well, I'm very happy you are satisfied. Just as you most
> likely
> > are satisfied that Khufu built G1 as his tomb during the 4th
> > Dynasty despite any reasonable logic to account for such a
> > characterization.
> >
> > Meanwhile, please stop bullying anyone else who remains
> > skeptical based on their own perspective of objective science
> > and logic.
> >
> > Respectfully,
> > O'n
>
> I’m happy that you’re happy.
>
> A couple of questions:
>
> What bullying? Is asking people to think and reconsider and
> refusing to be shouted down bullying?
>
> What objective science and logic? (I really would like to know
> what you mean.)
>
> Your posts suggest that you’re working in part from factoids
> invented by Sitchin. I’ve suggested a remedy. I can do no
> more.
>
> M.
>

OK, here are my sincere answers to your questions. I hope you find them helpful.

Yes, within an intellectual discussion, abruptly telling someone who you've never met and never communicated with previously that they're not thinking hard enough when they ask a question can easily be construed as offensive and hostile. Especially when your complaint is based on a word you are using in a very non-standard way. I don't know what country you are from, but in the USA it's insulting. In a discussion like this where you know many countries are represented, the respectful approach is to show a modicum of sensitivity to social and cultural differences and be tolerant of the broad education, interests, intelligence, and scope of the questioning here.

My comment about objective science and logic includes your double standard that gives Vyse a free innocent-until-proven-guilty pass but places inordinate burden on all the other guilty-until-proven-innocents. It also may or may not include the general notion that the Old Kingdom timeline is cast in stone even though it really is a very rought approximation based on the areas of expertise of the small band of luminaries who are respected for proposing the timeline, or that pyramids were definitely designed to be tombs in light of the contradicting evidence, or that a dozen similar names somehow must mean it's the same person which often requires bending the rules of linguistics a bit to make it fit. While you seem so hell-bent on discrediting Sitchin who at least presents a rationale for his arguments, you seem as strongly compelled to believe G1 was built around 2500 BCE as a tomb for a guy named Khufu even though there is virtually no compelling evidence to support any of those claims.

There is nothing in my posts that suggest I'm "working in part from factoids invented by Sitchin" because I've never read Sitchin and the only thing I know about him is his alien connection which I specifically decry. If Sitchin also thinks Vyse's discovery is a fraud, that's a separate thing.