> Origyptian wrote:
> > You are the one that posted the trivial question "Who is that
> > next to the stone?" I simply assumed you were leading to a
> > point, but perhaps not. If it's not royal signage, when who
> > responsible for it?
> Not a trivial question in the context of your inanities
> about Engelbach not knowing or doubting (or whatever it was)
> the provenance of the stela. As DScribr notes, you keep
> conveniently forgetting what you’ve said.
> “Royal signage” is a bullshit category invented by you and
> probitively worthless, much like “physical evidence”.
> > I've consulted Shaw and Murray which were recommended in this
> > discussion, and neither seem to agree on the composition of
> > stone, the translation of the glyphs, or the provenance of
> > stone. They've made no statement about the age of the
> > engraving, or the purpose of the stone. Murray made it very
> > clear how the condition of the stele is incompatible with the
> > notion that it has been sitting out there for 4000 years. I
> > consider all of that to be "data".
> Then quote his statement to this effect — but no, you can’t, as
> he “made no statement about the age of the engraving” — so what
> we have here is something he did not say, but which
> you’ve read into the material. I, for one, see no
> reason to trust the result.
> They don’t seem to agree? What’s that supposed to mean?
> Do they agree or not? Don’t you know?
> Is this vagary supposed to suggest that the entire inscription
> is uncertain? When Rowe gave two readings, “hunting ground of
> Khufu” and “workshop of Khufu”, was he uncertain about the
> “Khufu” part? No, he was not, and he had no reason to be:
> there is no uncertainty about the cartouche name and there is
> no uncertainty about the concluding determinative. The name is
> compounded on the royal name much as estate names and names of
> pyramids were compounded on the royal name.
> George Murray was not an Egyptologist. Anything he said on the
> “translation” of the “glyphs” would be on someone else’s
> authority. So how could he disagree with Shaw on the point?
> What we have here is perfect example of how you turn a
> tendentious reading into “data”.
> > It's not at all clear what you consider to be "halfbaked" or
> > "conspiracy". I've called nothing a conspiracy, and I'm
> > my conclusions on the data I've read from the primary
> > literature. It would seem like you are the one imagining
> > in this discussion, ignoring what the experts have written on
> > the subject.
> Oh, so now, when it suits you, they’re the experts? You pick
> and choose your “experts” entirely arbitrarily.
> And now you’re swearing blind that you never said what you very
> obviously did say. Again the convenient forgetting.
> That you lack the honesty to call things by their names is a
> comment on you, not me. If it walks like a conspiracy theory
> and quacks like a conspiracy theory, I call it a conspiracy
> What you’ve produced, Femano, is an elaborate rationalisation
> of your impulse to dismiss whole swathes of data.
> > I'm reporting what the "experts" claimed happened.
> Not what I asked for. I asked for the data. Theories are
> tested against data. You’re testing data against theory. Data
> which doesn’t fit your theory you dismiss, with
> plonking, conspiracist claims of “forgery”.
> > And there are also those of us less obsessed with displaying
> > our Latin acumen and, rather, focus on logic and physical
> > evidence to draw our conclusions. You are entitled to your
> > opinion, as am I. Do not forget that simple truth.
> Oh, so now we’re back to “physical evidence” — “experts”
> Again, Femano, for your information, “physical evidence” is a
> legal term which you are misusing.
> > This is umpteenth time you have accused me of that, I've
> > challenged you every time, and you have yet to produce a
> > shred of evidence to back up any of your allegations.
> You have produced the evidence, in post after post
> Again the convenient forgetting, which is surely pathological.
Right on the money, MS.
"Is this vagary supposed to suggest that the entire inscription is uncertain?"
And everything else about the Stele as well.
'What we have here is perfect example of how you turn a tendentious reading into “data”.'
Ori likes to think his opinions are facts that we should imm. accept without question.
"Oh, so now, when it suits you, they’re the experts? You pick and choose your “experts” entirely arbitrarily.
And now you’re swearing blind that you never said what you very obviously did say. Again the convenient forgetting. (Convenient for Ori, anyway.)
What you’ve produced, Femano, is an elaborate rationalisation of your impulse to dismiss whole swathes of data."
Well said thru out Martin, but I do still like my "TOTAL BS, ORI" reply.
Campbell's Chamber roof blocks are Tura Limestone until proven otherwise.
THE Cartouche in Campbell's Chamber IS Authentic, as are ALL other RC's Glyphs, until proven otherwise.
"This Forgery 'theory' has more holes than a sieve basket."