Warwick L Nixon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "Don Barone - another insult by you!!! "
>
> come again??

> How is that an insult and where have I insulted
> you previously??

You cannot insult me.. But it is insulting to compare my studies, and internally consistent results, or the studies by Lubicz, or Legon, to the confusion, which reigns over the studies of Don Barone. Comprenez-vous, monsieur?

> "OCT - didn't you already mention Bauval once? "
>
> Robert's OCT is merely that which strives the
> hardest to be placed in context
> ther are many avariables of teh notion...many that
> came before Robert's

Yeah, right, and all the ado is about inaccurate astronomical reflections of several stars on architecture on the ground - this too is insulting to intelligence.
> "
> In other words -Bring on the Blindfolds, momma!"
>
> what in the world are you talking about??
>
> "Of course, my theory works in context! Perhaps,
> we are not in agreement what the context is. "
>
> The only relevant context is that which alighn
> with teh culture that built at Giza

The first context is out of context, but internally consistent. A thing has to exist on its own mathematically, before it can be put into context, get it?
>
> "Due to this, skip the context bull, and bring on
> the serious consideration of intrinsic qualities
> of the ancient works I researched. "
>
> I can see where you might find evidence
> inconvenient

It is a different kind of evidence, and besides it is not as clear as you say, because a discussion still rages on the context, on what is in the context.

> You certainly have an abrasive approach to debate

Because I said bull? Even the pope publishes bulls! You are the abrasive one for refusing to consider a given evidence by itself, before jumping to generalities, and listing fake reasons to justify your nihilistic approach.
>
Jiri
ps
Do you even understand what I mean by "intrinsic qualities"?