lobo-hotei Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anthony I think you have it wrong here.
>
> Hermione asked Ritva if she would detail her
> objections to the article.
>
> Ritva respondedQuote:No, I won't waste my time on
> it. Most objections have been posted here over and
> over again. Do a search.
>
> She is saying most of the objections she had/has
> with the article have already been posted here,
> but not the article itself.
This is not possible, because the primary argument has not been posted here.
>
> IOW, as I am reading it, she never said the
> "primary argument" of the article had been posted,
At the time she wrote it, it most definitely had not. That is my point, and I have challenged her to provide a link to where it has been posted. So far, she hasn't even demonstrated her having read the article itself in any way Her only attempt at documenting the fact of her having read it is to say she has read it, (except to vaguely say she doesn't agree with it). That doesn't actually demonstrate her having read it, though, and it certainly doesn't demonstrate her claim that:
Quote
The article is just a simple debunker excercise, the same kind we were used to seeing here from the author.
It is not. It contains new material that has never, to my recollection, been examined in such detail. The particulars have never, also to my recollection, been discussed here at Ma'at at any time since the site was opened. And I should know, I was one of the first ten people to post here.
This is about honestly examining the latest research on a topic. If we allow people to falsely brand it as "more of the same with nothing new", then how can we ever expect to make any progress? New ideas, new data, new analyses will be willfully ignored and swept under the carpet by those who find the newest research to be "inconvenient".
This is not the way of responsible research. This is the defense of dogma... much as we've seen presented here by people who claim "star shafts are a fact and the discussion is over". That message is so very similar to "pay no attention to that man behind the curtain...."
I'll finish here. Until a thread that predates Ritva's comments that "it's all been discussed before" is provided, her statement standsa as an error of fact. I'm not passing judgement... heck, I really LIKE Ritva. But I like facts to be maintained, too.
Anthony
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.