Home of the The Hall of Ma'at on the Internet
Home
Discussion Forums
Papers
Authors
Web Links

May 6, 2024, 10:56 am UTC    
August 13, 2001 05:38AM
<HTML>>> > You advocate derision every time someone makes a mistake?

>>No. However, I do advocate it for the adherents of Maier's Law.

So anyone who disposes of evidence which doesn't fit their theory should be derided. OK, but in this statement:

>>Mind you, anyone who can assume that the printers accidentally reversed the map but somehow managed to leave the writing on that map unreversed deserves all the derision he gets.

... you are suggesting that RB is simply too inept to realise the obvious, ie. he made a mistake, an error. You then bolster this by saying further down the thread:

>>I'll accept your analogy as being valid when Bauval corrects his errors

...which indicates (in order for the analogy to work) that you believe his statement about the printers is an error.

My conclusion from this is that you believe that RB deserves all the derision he gets for apparently making an error with regard to the 'printers' line, which flies in the face of your statement:

>>I have already told you that my opinion is that derision is applicable to adherents of Maier's Law.Which bit of that did you not understand? Nowhere did I state that it is applicable to the making of simple mistakes. Please do not attribute to me things that I have not said/written.

So, is this line...:

>>I presume that the printers put the photograph the wrong way."

1. a case of discarding evidence
2. an error
3. a touch of sarcasm?

From what you write I conclude that you assume it is 2. Only 1. deserves derision, therefore your statement regarding RB deserving all the derision he gets is unwarranted.

As I've shown, we were both wrong. The actual answer is 3.

Shall we call this a draw?

Bryan.</HTML>
Subject Author Posted

Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 11, 2001 04:17AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Joanne August 11, 2001 08:04AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 11, 2001 09:40AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Joanne August 11, 2001 10:36AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 11, 2001 10:52AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Joanne August 11, 2001 11:01AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 12, 2001 03:03AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 11, 2001 11:04AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 11, 2001 11:17AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 11, 2001 11:44AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 12, 2001 05:16AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 12, 2001 07:12AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 12, 2001 09:03AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 12, 2001 10:06AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 12, 2001 11:40AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Katherine Reece August 12, 2001 11:43AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Mikey Brass August 13, 2001 05:03AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 12, 2001 12:38PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 12, 2001 01:02PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 12, 2001 02:10PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Derek Barnett August 12, 2001 02:17PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 13, 2001 05:06AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 12, 2001 04:12PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 12, 2001 06:37PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 12, 2001 06:49PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 12, 2001 07:36PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 13, 2001 01:31AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 13, 2001 04:43AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Stephen Tonkin August 13, 2001 05:46AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 13, 2001 06:58AM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Derek Barnett August 12, 2001 12:55PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 12, 2001 02:30PM

Re: Bauval on Krupp

Bryan August 13, 2001 05:38AM



Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login