<HTML>Hi again Garret,
Thanks for the opportunity to exhange directions of thought. First let me apologize for making the word "fear" sound as if based in fact. My logic was simply as follows: Simple presentation and discussion of hypotheses can (and should?) be accomplished on a totally intellectual basis; a logical discussion need involve little to no emotion; when an attempt at such discussion is disrupted by irrational behavior, emotions have been brought into play; some of the stronger negative emotions result from "fears" including personal insecurities (simply put, we get mad when someone else compromises our "turf"/security); hence, irrational behavior towards non-threatening hypotheses *may* be the result of "fear".
Even though I understand your explanation of "...countering widespread misconceptions spread by the "alternative" side", I find the degree to which some go to be illogical (irrational?) if one truly believes what you have stated earlier: " The vast majority of archaeologists have never heard of Robert Bauval or Graham Hancock " and " The sphinx erosion issue, to most archaeologists, is a non-issue. " Do you really not see how this can easily be viewed as *saying* one thing is true, and yet *acting* as if it isn't? And do you also really not see that to *intelligent* others from non-archeological fields this kind of dismissal makes it look more like a game of politics at times rather than scientific methodology? That everyone should be willing to accept that Geology and Paleoclimatology should be viewed as non-sciences concerning evidence (as compared to Archaeology/History)? And if the Geology or the Paleoclimatology do not stand up to scrutiny, shouldn't the scrutiny be by *their* peers and not simply the Archaeology/History community? Perhaps some feel that sufficient peer review is already out there and has decided the issues... but all I see is what looks like the prosecutor and the defense both with their own *expert* witnesses, but without any *peer* consensus as to which witness is really the expert. And all that does is leave the jury in doubt!!!
Btw, the situation does not bother me... the paradigm remains intact until sufficient evidence would be found otherwise... what bothers me is the apparent attitude that those who "dream the dreams" are endangering the paradigm just by dreaming and the pursuit of their dreams. That and perhaps the fact that subjective scientific method is being accepted in place of objective scientific method (just kidding... sort of).
Thanks for the discussion and viewpoints.
Litz</HTML>
