Rick Baudé Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That makes absolutely no sense. That's like
> saying post an image of George Washington that
> isn't George Washington. What do you call the two
> pix of the Seth animal that I posted? Non-images?
> pictures of a wannabe seth animal?

I call them pictures of Seth. I've asked you for pictures of the creature as a creature not as Seth. How much more clearly can it be said? You're unwilling to separate the two.


> > > I
> > > > have seen only images of Seth.
> Please
> > post
> > > the
> > > > links to the images of the
> creatures
> > > themselves,
> > > > apart from Seth.
> > >
> > > Uh the pictures I presented them before.
>
> >
> > Please explain how you determined that these
> are
> > not images of Seth.

Why didn't you answer this? How are distinguishing the so-called Seth animal from Seth himself?



> >
> > Yes, Rick, you showed me images of
> Seth....but
> > that is NOT what I asked you for! Now show
> me an
> > image of the animal itself THAT IS NOT SETH!
> Or
> > surrender.
> >
>
> ROTHFL. Surrender? Never! What should I post a pix
> of Sobek that isn't a crocodile but a picture of a
> crocodile while I'm at it?

You'd be getting warmer if you did. There are plenty of pictures of crocodiles that are not Sobek, plenty of pictures of cows that are not Hathor, plenty of pictures of dogs that are not Anubis, plenty of pictures of cats that are not Bastet. Are you getting it? Where is even one picture of a Seth animal that is not a picture of Seth??


> Well seeing how you went way out in left field
> with my post about Anubis. I'll drop this one,
> don't feel like rereading all these threads.

Stop saying I said something I never said, then.

> > > Dazzling display of circular reasoning;
> The
> > AE's
> > > made fabulous beasts that are imaginary.
> The
> > seth
> > > animal is a fabulous beast. conclusion
> the
> > seth
> > > animal is imaginary.
> >
> > No, what you have just written is a dazzling
> > display of an actual strawman.
>
> No it was a dazzling display of circular logic.
> Once you pull out the essential arguments and
> string them together to get a conclusion that
> supporst what you proposed in the first place. I
> know that's not a strict definition of "circular
> logic" but it will do.

If you know it's not circular logic, then why did you say it? I did not "pull out the essential arguments and string them together to get a conclusion that supports what I proposed in the first place." You should read more carefully, especially if you don't like to go back and re-read all the details you missed.


> If you cannot or
>
> > will not discuss the points I have made and
> will
> > not answer questions and simply want to make
> silly
> > accusations, I'm done here.
>
> I've answered your points and questions repeatedly
> if that isn't enough for you well then I'm sorry.

You haven't answered or acknowledged anything. You've argued by assertion and yet you have accused me of several fallacies I did not commit.


> If you ever find a
> > single image of Seth animal anywhere, let us
> know.
> >
> Again for the eleventy-seventh time, I've already
> posted several images of seth animals.

See above...

YOu
> discount all of them out of hand even though
> they're absolutely genuine Egptological artifacts.

No, I discount them because they are not responsive to the request.

> BTW since you seem to hung up on the word "image"
> Here's a definition of it:

Really, where have I even brought up the word?