cladking Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hans Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > cladking Wrote:
> >
> -------------------------------------------------------
>
> > > I believe there were only 28 "wag-priests"
> > >working
> > > in here at a time and 14 spellmen. At 1/10
> HP
> > > each this would produce little heat for the
> > > size
> > > of the ventilation system.
>
> > Why would you believe that?
>
> There are provisions for 14 emplacements for
> lifting devices and a walkway above to access
> these.

I don't believe you. Remember Cladking you're a known serial liar with 0 credibility anything you say is considered to be suspected and made up unless you provided evidence from a reliable source. Since you never do your 'opinions' are rejected out of hand. Whose fault is that? YOURS.

A supreme being, eh?

Sorry supreme beings. You always go on and on how superior they are (but then you are making them up) but now you are letting them down by saying the shafts didn't work . You simply don't know that and it is - as usual - something you just made up.
>
> > Why would it be difficult to understand an
> English > > word?

D'uh....because they weren't speaking English nor using English syntax. subject–verb–object vs verb-subject-object. Because of that people who actually know how to read foreign languages know you are self-deluded in your self held belief that you can understand the 'true' meaning of their words.
>
> Most English words have many many meanings.
> Indeed, since their definitions are merely
> composed of more words with many definitions any
> sentence can mean just about anything. But still
> some things are true by definition, like the
> shortest distance between two points is a straight
> line.

If it ain't straight then its ain't the shortest - do I really need to explain that to you?

You can use statistics
> and speculation until there are only 600,000
> stones in G1 but it remains exactly the size it
> is.

It means you are using bad data and you delight in doing so - but then why not your stuff isn't exact correct, science or rational.
>
> If I'm correct they had no religion.

No, only you say that - you have closed your eyes to data and have been screaming that for years and it makes you look rather ill informed. They had a religion and your opinion on the matter is really of no importance. Remember you've never supported it with evidence.

They didn't
> believe in magic.

Yes they did

Indeed, it is because they
> lacked words for belief,

No they didn't this is all stuff you've made up - your opinions don't change reality

I am suggesting they
> were nothing like you, me or Egyptologists.

you are wrong they were just humans.

all stones were
> lifted straight up the sides of five step pyramids
> one step at a time using counterweights.

We don't know that and you don't have evidence to support it

I am
> suggesting this is fully consistent with the
> literal meaning of everything they said;

no it isn't

And how
> will he be assembled, bring the boat that flies up
> and alight and the copper. Let the two boats be
> tied together. He is the pyramid. He is a star.
> Again and again they used perfect English to say
> exactly what they meant but we parse it to mean
> something else.

You opinion is not share by those who actually know the language, culture and religion. Nor can you provide a coherent paper setting forth your ideas. All you do is make baseless claims.
>
> They weren't like us and their culture wasn't like
> ours and it certainly wasn't like the culture in
> the "book of the dead".

They were very much like us

We misinterpret their
> culture.

No you have and deliberately so. Loudly stated opinions WITH NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE.

> You're taking this off topic and if it doesn't
> come back I won't respond.

No I'm not I'm being utterly evil and asking you for evidence and reminding you that all the stuff you made up isn't supported. Its just intellectual trash.

But the idea that
> the grand gallery and airshafts were fort
> religious purposes is a nonstarter.

Your stating so doesn't make it so. Again your opinions are neither evidence nor well considered - total lack of credibility gain from 15+ years of lying.

It is simply
> pointless to suppose we will ever find writing
> that shows the grand gallery was for religious or
> funerary purposes.

Like we found Merer's Diary? In your mind that shouldn't exist - but it does it really confused you because you could make up fake meanings for it...lol

It is quite
> apparent that we are misinterpreting a great deal
> of evidence.

Yes YOU are. Fortunately other people aren't and fortunately no one takes you seriously

I have merely been proposing one way
> to tie all the evidence together that employs
> physical evidence and the literal meaning of what
> they actually said.

In other words you are saying, 'I've made up a lot of disconnected nonsense that ignores any evidence I don't like....' Yeah we know that and we have for over a decade+++
>
"Nn.twi" is their word for
> "dorsal air siphon". This word when in a context
> of the pyramid was their scientific term for
> "airshafts".

Haha. Sure it was Cladking, sure it was.....what is that? Oh, wait you cannot speak the language - do you ever consider that?