Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

Nobody has claimed it has been posted here before. As far as the objections she has for it, they(the objections) could be posted here prior to this article. Or are you saying every time a new "star shaft" theory comes around you create an all new argument for each and every theory?

The argument is new, the objections aren't. You use the same "No stellar at Giza" objection for any "star shaft" theory. Now has the objection you use been posted here before? Has the "star shaft theory" of August '07 been posted yet?
See the difference?


> 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.

As of the time now it still hasn't. That isn't the point. The objections, that she would have posted if she had accepted Hermione's request, are what she was talking about not the "main argument" of the article.


> 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).

Should we stop giving the benefit of the doubt?

This is pure double standards Anthony. You dislike others questioning your having read something when you state you have and yet here you are doing the same thing to Ritva.


> 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.

An opinion.


> It is not.

An opinion just like Ritva's above.

> 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.

Good for you.


> This is about honestly examining the latest
> research on a topic.

Actually this is about you misunderstanding what Ritva meant, as she has clarified already.


> 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".

Again Anthony you are not correct in what she said and you are doing what you justifiably argue towards others, namely not quoting the other poster's words.

Quote

I agree with you, Jeff. The article is just a simple debunker excercise, the same kind we were used to seeing here from the author. The only difference is that the one-liners had to be turned out more eloquently.

Nowhere did she say "more of the same with nothing new" in that post.


> 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...."

OR similar to the "I'm right, their wrong!" message.


> 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.

How about you supply the link to the post where she comments "it's all been discussed before". You see many of the statements you have made can stand as error of facts too.
She never claimed the "main argument"/article has been discussed here before. She simply declined to waste time to "detail her objections to the article" that Hermione posted. Most of these objections would be found in a search, I imagine, just like she said.



I'm not passing judgement... heck,
> I really LIKE Ritva. But I like facts to be
> maintained, too.

Irrelevant.

Regards,
Lobo-hotei
lobo

Treat the earth well, It was not given to you by your parents, It was loaned to you by your children.
Native American Proverb