| May 22, 2024, 11:22 am UTC |
 |
| In: The Hall of Maat > Ancient History - Ancient History and Archaeology > Topic |
| Goto: Forum List • Create A New Profile • Log In |
|
Ancient History •
Ancient Egypt •
Laboratory •
Humanities •
Apocalypse •
Paper Lens •
Coffee Shop Exhibitions, Conferences, Lectures, Journals • Alternative Geometry and Numerology |
| September 26, 2001 07:31PM |
<HTML>Oh c'mon Sandy!
I was miles away from being hostile.
Nor am I blowing smoke. I'm sorry if you read it that way. (I even added in that I was being poilte - did you miss that?).
Actually, I <I>have</I> read the material. All 400 hours of it (!). (Just a lighthearted poke at Ms Morrison). When I make a point, it comes from meticulousness, not off the cuff remarks from skimming. Seriously - what would be the point of copy/pasting my way through this? PS. Archae and Frank are by no means the only people to have ever reviewed the material. Where'd you get that idea?
Some time ago I wrote a very long letter to Ms Morrison which included a refresher of points raised here and elsewhere against the theory, and included some elaborate refutations of my own. Believe me, it was a letter that - if posted here - would end the argument. Thing is, she refused to answer it, and chose to continue keying out thousands of words for this board and others. Sadly, because of disinterest, I deleted the copy from my folder (I thought, "What's the point of keeping this?". "B-bye," I said). That was six months ago....
Sure, some copper was used, but not exclusively. In any case, there's no need to goad me into continuing. (Not that that's your intent - but words like 'blowing smoke' and 'hostility' usually mean I have to defend what I thought was clearly nothing of the sort. *smile*. I went out of my way to be polite, yes?) No harm or foul, between us then? Thanks Sandy.
I will say this before I go: The proponents did a lot of in depth and technical research, but very simple points offered in reply securely administered opposing evidence in absolution. I thought it very cordial of at least Archae and Frank to give lengthy replies as well, but in the end, it's not needed. Why? Well, I'll give an analogy:
Those examining a fly-like figurine do pages and pages of study on every aspect of the specimen right down to the atomic scale. They create tables, charts, and endless data. They conclude, "It's a fly!"
Then someone walks up and says, "Yeah, but it's a rubber fly. It's not real."
Geopolymeric Egypt can no better soar in the air, then can rubber. (please don't psychoanalyze this)
Cheers,
Avry</HTML>
I was miles away from being hostile.
Nor am I blowing smoke. I'm sorry if you read it that way. (I even added in that I was being poilte - did you miss that?).Actually, I <I>have</I> read the material. All 400 hours of it (!). (Just a lighthearted poke at Ms Morrison). When I make a point, it comes from meticulousness, not off the cuff remarks from skimming. Seriously - what would be the point of copy/pasting my way through this? PS. Archae and Frank are by no means the only people to have ever reviewed the material. Where'd you get that idea?
Some time ago I wrote a very long letter to Ms Morrison which included a refresher of points raised here and elsewhere against the theory, and included some elaborate refutations of my own. Believe me, it was a letter that - if posted here - would end the argument. Thing is, she refused to answer it, and chose to continue keying out thousands of words for this board and others. Sadly, because of disinterest, I deleted the copy from my folder (I thought, "What's the point of keeping this?". "B-bye," I said). That was six months ago....
Sure, some copper was used, but not exclusively. In any case, there's no need to goad me into continuing
. (Not that that's your intent - but words like 'blowing smoke' and 'hostility' usually mean I have to defend what I thought was clearly nothing of the sort. *smile*. I went out of my way to be polite, yes?) No harm or foul, between us then? Thanks Sandy.I will say this before I go: The proponents did a lot of in depth and technical research, but very simple points offered in reply securely administered opposing evidence in absolution. I thought it very cordial of at least Archae and Frank to give lengthy replies as well, but in the end, it's not needed. Why? Well, I'll give an analogy:
Those examining a fly-like figurine do pages and pages of study on every aspect of the specimen right down to the atomic scale. They create tables, charts, and endless data. They conclude, "It's a fly!"
Then someone walks up and says, "Yeah, but it's a rubber fly. It's not real."
Geopolymeric Egypt can no better soar in the air, then can rubber. (please don't psychoanalyze this
)Cheers,
Avry</HTML>
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.