> Scott probably would have faired better if REAL cultural
> evidence was used instead of blind-faith beliefs colored as
> facts were thrown around.
> Each board(GHMB and Hall of Maat)have their points, one is
> usually for "What IFs" based on beliefs and the other is
> usually "What is known so far..." with supportive evidence.
Given that one of those Boards claims to have set itself up with the (rather spiteful) intent on debunking the work of one man (Graham Hancock) you would at least expect it to provide a level playingfield for debate.
Alas, it is nothing of the sort, with the worst kind of raw Moderator bias I have ever seen on any forum on the Internet (and I've been active on the web since 1995) constantly moving the goalposts in any discussion, with blatant editing, intervention and censorship at every turn. Disreputable and dishonourable, it is an affront to the concept of Ma'at: terrified of any prospect of a truth beyond its own collective limitations, a fussy henhouse of reaction where evidence is buried or denied a lot more often than it is ever "weighed".
As one of the regulars used to ruling the roost therein, I wouldn't expect you to agree. It must be nice - comforting indeed - to debate only amongst co-dependents, with Mother Hen rushing in every few post or so to ensure that the debate is going in the direction that conforms to house rules.
Nice and comforting, but pointless.
I see that since they have chased out or banned virtually every original thinker who ever signed up to the place, their Ancient Egyptian discussion boards have rather atrophied somewhat. Perhaps mummified would be a better word... there certainly is the low level stench of intellectual death.
That raises an interesting thought....
Was it all designed, I wonder, to be a tomb?
""It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair