> DScribr wrote:
> > Perhaps you should read my posts more carefully. I've
> > explained to you about your 'non-claims'. (Another
> > BS post, is this all you have?)
> > To repeat: Your opinions consistently begin w/ "it seems",
> > "it suggests..." which doesn't come close to being 'physical
> > evidence' by ANY definition, and NO facts included, ever!
> What are you talking about? A "claim" or "hypothesis" is not
> "evidence". Rather, evidence is what is used to form the basis
> of claims and hypotheses. So if I see what looks like a paint
> run from a vertical block down into the junction with the
> adjacent block, I might state the hypothesis that "it seems
> that the paint was applied after the block was installed in
> situ". The hypothesis is not the evidence, the paint run is the
> Likewise, when we see evidence of all kinds of ancient garbage
> at the quarries, and evidence of humans who inhabited the
> place, records of what they ate, when they bathed, and
> instructions to deliver a product, but ZERO physical evidence,
> even in the huge volume of ancient garbage, of any shred of
> tools or equipment related to quarrying at what is widely
> believed to have been one of the largest quarry operations in
> ancient history, that's evidence that allows one to formulate
> hypotheses that maybe, just maybe, things ain't quite what
> we've been told all these years. The hypothesis isn't the
> "evidence", it's the conspicuous lack of specific evidence in
> the midst of all the other evidence found in those excavations
> that spurs the hypothesis.
> > YOUR opinion is NO better than anyone elses, but for some
> > unknown reason, you believe it is, and you believe that your
> > opinions don't require ANY physical evidence, (and the facts
> > dammed...full steam ahead) BUT you insist that ALL others DO
> > provide physical evidence...and when we do, you
> > dismiss/disregard it without a valid reason, every time.
> Show me a post where I've said my "opinion" is better than
> anyone else's "opinion". Meanwhile, how is that related to the
> current debate about the quarries? You and yours have not
> expressed an "opinion"; you clearly have expressed a "claim", a
> staunchly held claim, which you not only contend is
> unquestionably true (ergo "indisputable"), but which has pushed
> several of you to become obsessed with issuing incessant
> insults and sarcasm to anyone who disagrees with you.
> > GET REAL Ori, the dbl-standard is obvious to all.
> The readers will make their own decision.
> > My tagline IS logical, and it IS a fact....IF you can't
> > this reality, that's YOUR problem.
> I rest my case.
> > (Will the SCA and Mainstream change the currently accepted
> > dates solely due to YOUR opinions??? NO, they want relevant
> > FACTUAL data, [PROOF] not misconceptions based on
> > and speculations.)
> What? I don't expect ANYONE to change their opinion based on my
> opinion, let alone the SCA. I have never tried to change the
> SCA's (or "Mainstream's") opinion. And the SCA hasn't tried to
> change my opinion. You, and a few others here, are the only
> ones obsessed with trying to change someone's opinion.
> > IS telling someone to ignore the issue part of your
> 'scientific method'???
> No, but telling someone to ignore me when they insist on
> harrassing me dozens of times each day IS part of my method to
> keep the library quiet so the rest of us can study. When have I
> ever told "someone to ignore the issue"?
> > You are simply unwilling to answer my question.
> I don't even know what your question is. You refer to a
> hypothesis as if it was "evidence". First you insist I've made
> several "claims", and then you say I'm too wishy washy to
> commit to anything except polite conditionals like "it seems"
> and "perhaps". Frankly, your repeated illogical questions are a
> moving target and have lost their worthiness for an answer.
> Look, I don't know if you're coming up with this stuff on your
> own or whether you're being coached privately, but you're being
> steered very badly and you're being taken farther off the rails
> with each passing day.
> But by all means, keep digging yourself deeper.
> Post Edited (09-Jul-15 22:34)
As usual, you have no idea.
You think you are the 'Artful Dodger' here, but you aren't fooling anyone.
(You've failed to grasp my main point. or you are simply 'playing' dumb.)
For the LAST time: I WAS NOT and AM NOT involved in the current Quarry discussion IN ANY WAY, (or on the previous one)....I suggest you reread my posts MORE CAREFULLY. (More diversionary BS.)
YOU just told ME the other day to ignore the issue....I suggest YOU reread YOUR OWN posts more carefully....and it would be a good idea IF you REMEMBERED what you said.
Ori, " I don't even know what your question is."
This IS a bold-faced LIE....the 'Artful Dodger' strikes again. (I've asked it SEVERAL times...you're not fooling anyone w/ this BS.)
"Polite conditionals..." Total BS.
Tell it like it IS: you ARE too wimpy to take a stand on anything, as this would require proof for your nonsense.
Your last para. is ALL nonsense, I certainly don't need any coaching, etc.
One 'man's' hole is another man's pile.
Post Edited (10-Jul-15 22:42)
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."