cladking Wrote:
> No. If it were complex then I couldn't understand
> it.
>
> It is simply a matter of solving terms in context
> while reverse engineering the pyramid.
Yes what we call making stuff up - you aren't actually doing anything just pretending and lying about it. No evidence
A child
> can solve terms in context and reverse engineering
> is not complex but merely requires a greater
> understanding of science than the designer and
> fabricator.
LOL sure and where are the instructions on how to do that? What you have none? You just make stuff up on the fly. Right more lying
>
> If I say it's 3:42 PM CST do I have to produce my
> research papers? When I say the sky is blue you
> will gainsay it.
LYING again - AL doesn't exist you forgot to provide evidence or any rational explanation and no translations to show it.
AL is your personal delusion nothing more.
>
> This is all so simple it doesn't require
> "research". When the builders say the kings tomb
> is in the sky I don't even need to diagram the
> sentence and can just say that my contention is it
> was meant literally.
Only you believe that no one else does - we see you making up nonsense and failing over and over again to get anyone to believe your BS
Your objections are smoke
> screens and obfuscation.
No you have nothing. After 15 years of making false claims. NOTHING show us the evidence - your shouting out claims isn't evidence
The evidence is as it
> exists and it does not support the assumptions
> that gave us pyramids as tombs.
Yes it does
> No. I can not read the language because the very
> definition of "read" requires that one parse the
> language and AL can not be parsed without losing
> its meaning.
Drivel you just make up nonsense remember the Shu experiment that thing you cannot face - well go over it all again in the next message huh?
They said the kings tomb was in the
> sky and if you parse or "interpret" it then the
> meaning is changed.
No they didn't only you claim that
The language was literal.
> You continually ignore parts of what I am saying
> about how to understand AL:.
There is no AL its in ancient Egyptian - you cannot wish AL into existence by making empty claims without evidence
>
> When you think like an Egyptian you simply don't
> experience thought.
...Cladking you weren't there don't pretend you were it makes you looking barking mad
>
Love is an abstraction - just live with and know you are wrong
>
> Everything we say has a different meaning to every
> single listener. AL had a single meaning and
> everyone who understood science as well as the
> speaker or better got the exact same meaning.
...and again your own experiment demonstrated that this isn't true it doesn't work. Stop lying SHU experiment coming up next message
>
> This argument isn't about semantics it's about the
> pyramids and why they said the pyramids are kings
> and the kings ascended from the iskn on the smoke
> of incense. They said the king was a star and a
> pyramid.
No they didn't this argument is about you lying and refusing to provide evidence to support your claims.
> How many times have I told you it breaks Zipf's
> Law and this is the first time you noticed.
Cladking each time you make this false claim I challenge you to show your research that shows this. YOU DON'T have it - you just made it up. You are lying again and again.
