1650 replies to this topic

[Leonardo]

Scott Creighton, on 02 June 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

SC: I disagree. Nothing in my post was personal.

What a complete load of b*ll*cks.

Your personal attacks from the post replying to kmt:

Quote

How on earth can you be so gullible?

Quote

How can you so brazenly misinform people?

Quote

What – did you read this in some orthodox Egyptology book somewhere? So, because you read this in some mainstream Egyptology book means it must be correct and so it then becomes fact? Are you listening to yourself? When will you wake up and smell Vyse’s cordite?

Quote

Obviously you are not "aware".

Quote

But will you look beyond what you think you know?  Probably not because you already think you have all the answers (from the books).

Quote

Just how long exactly have you been perpetuating this hidebound, closed-minded nonsense on this board – and getting away with it? You're talking absolute nonsense.

How many uses of the personal pronoun "you" - in direct reference to kmt and NOT the argument kmt was using - are in the above quotes, Scott? Yet you have the sheer nerve to claim you "don't make personal attacks"?

Your self-apologist attitude is your own defence to delude yourself against the fact you are a nasty piece of work. I haven't read a thread in which you have participated where you haven't descended to personal attack and insult.

You are an insult to this forum. Get ye hence from this place.

[questionmark]

Just a little detail: That the Sphinx is located in the middle of the quarry used to source the stones for the great pyramid does not make anybody realize its origin?

[Harte]

kmt_sesh, on 02 June 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

It's practically impossible to have a reasonable, level-headed, and rational discussion or debate with people like you and Scott because you throw mountains of make-believe at us and cop the attitude that you're in possession of some kind of private, secret, arcane knowledge that can trump two centuries of solid, hard-won scholarship. So you throw a fit when I present information from the orthodox perspective and spend more time whining about me than you do trying to support your claims.

This is an absolutely accurate description of the attitudes and purposeful ignorance that these two posters constantly exhibit.

It also describes exactly why both of them have been on my "ignore" list for quite some time now.

While we're on the topic of asking people not to respond (as you did,) may I ask you this Kmt?

Please, can you stop quoting these two ingnoramuses so that I don't have to read their tripe?

You are violating my right to low blood pressure.

Also - you could benefit from the judicial use of the ignore function here.  You once commented on my "semi-retirement" from my crusade against ignorance at this website.  The ignore function is a key aspect of how you may accomplish this.

kmt_sesh, on 02 June 2012 - 04:18 AM, said:

This is a tough day for me. It marks the one-year anniversary of my mom's passing, so I came to UM to do some posting and discussion.

I want to express my sympathy for you then, buddy.

Both mine have been gone for a few years now.  I miss them too.

There is still good conversation to be had here, pal.  Don't you remember?  A few months (or was it a year) back I told you to prepare for the fringe flood to come, back when this board was (temporarily) a calm refuge in a raging internet storm of psuedoarchaeology.

Well, I'm still here, and so are you. So is Diechecker, Cormac, Abe, Emma Acid, The Searcher (though not since April, it seems), Questionmark, Wearer of Hats (the grumpy old fart), Kantzveldt, Lightly, Aus Der Box Skeptisch, Oniomancer, Pax Unum, Shadowsot and...., and....

Damn, now look what you've done. You've trapped me.  I'm afraid I've forgotten someone (or many)

I'll have to go with the "Gilligans Island" closing..."...and the rest..."

Harte

[Scott Creighton]

Leonardo, on 02 June 2012 - 02:15 PM, said:

What a complete load of b*ll*cks.

Your personal attacks from the post replying to kmt:













How many uses of the personal pronoun "you" - in direct reference to kmt and NOT the argument kmt was using - are in the above quotes, Scott? Yet you have the sheer nerve to claim you "don't make personal attacks"?

Your self-apologist attitude is your own defence to delude yourself against the fact you are a nasty piece of work. I haven't read a thread in which you have participated where you haven't descended to personal attack and insult.

You are an insult to this forum. Get ye hence from this place.

Hi Leonardo,

Tsk, tsk.  One can hardly avoid using the pronoun "you/your" when referencing 'his' opinions. Now go look at the ad hom from good ol' Harte with his use of the word "ignoramus". For someone who is so apparently ignorant I certainly present questions here that the Egypt-apologists cannot answer. So I guess the Egypt-apologists are as ignorant as I since they cannot provide the answers to my questions.

Though I am sure it would be met with a welcome sigh of relief were I to disengage from this Forum, alas for you, that won't be happening any time soon. You might think the Egypt-apologists around here rule the roost and can bully folks away from this Forum but as I told you before, I am not so easily dissuaded and I certainly won't be bullied away. So, get used to it......

Now, do you actually have any points to make that are pertinent to the actual topic of the discussion?

Very best wishes,

SC

[Jon101]

My condolences KMT.
I am very grateful for the measured and accurate wisdom you dole out here, and it must seem a sisyphean task, fighting the long fight against ignorance.  The woo does seem to have intensified in the past year, why?, I cannot say, but don't be discouraged.

Jon.

[Time Spy]

Harte, on 02 June 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

This is an absolutely accurate description of the attitudes and purposeful ignorance that these two posters constantly exhibit.

It also describes exactly why both of them have been on my "ignore" list for quite some time now.

While we're on the topic of asking people not to respond (as you did,) may I ask you this Kmt?

Please, can you stop quoting these two ingnoramuses so that I don't have to read their tripe?

You are violating my right to low blood pressure.

Also - you could benefit from the judicial use of the ignore function here.  You once commented on my "semi-retirement" from my crusade against ignorance at this website.  The ignore function is a key aspect of how you may accomplish this.




I want to express my sympathy for you then, buddy.

Both mine have been gone for a few years now.  I miss them too.

There is still good conversation to be had here, pal.  Don't you remember?  A few months (or was it a year) back I told you to prepare for the fringe flood to come, back when this board was (temporarily) a calm refuge in a raging internet storm of psuedoarchaeology.

Well, I'm still here, and so are you. So is Diechecker, Cormac, Abe, Emma Acid, The Searcher (though not since April, it seems), Questionmark, Wearer of Hats (the grumpy old fart), Kantzveldt, Lightly, Aus Der Box Skeptisch, Oniomancer, Pax Unum, Shadowsot and...., and....

Damn, now look what you've done. You've trapped me.  I'm afraid I've forgotten someone (or many)

I'll have to go with the "Gilligans Island" closing..."...and the rest..."

Harte

Oh excellent point Harte, stick your fingers in years and ignore anyoe who doesn't agree with your list of 'buddies', brainwashed to the 'orthodox' way of thinking as they are and yourself, so what.  Since when do you ever post to topic?  It's just more fun to be snide, rude and call names.  Well it comes back to you, and others when they take the atttiude that no one else can possibly have a valid point, so don't call 'foul' when the technical fault was your own.ignoramous.  The so called 'proof' I keep being directed to examine is all modern way of thinking, that mostly never follows suit with the original historical findings.  You guys won't even take into accoung what the ancients believed the pyramids intended use.  Anyone who claims their not tombs is either scrutinized, laughed at, ignored, or plain ignorant.  Well that is true ignorance, accepting everthing someone tells you or that you've read here and there, not able to think for yourself.  In fact the truth is being deliberately covered up and I for one am not blind to it.  I don't buy it or agree with it, my right to my opinion.  The fact that I am reading it anyway and saying so is the debate.  WHY are you here, if there is no one to debate with other than to pick and demeane?

Also Leonardo, your post was an excellent example of not having anything to do with the thread or topic whatsoever, not knowing what was going on and then jumnping in to call the kettle black while hurtling stones in any direction at will.  Yeah you REALLY made a point.  Why don't YOU just remove yourself or add to topic.

[Time Spy]

Jon101, on 02 June 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

My condolences KMT.
I am very grateful for the measured and accurate wisdom you dole out here, and it must seem a sisyphean task, fighting the long fight against ignorance.  The woo does seem to have intensified in the past year, why?, I cannot say, but don't be discouraged.

Jon.

Greeetings to you Jon.  Welcome to the forum.  I see the 'long fight' has been witnessed by yourself for almost a month now, WOW.  There is just no way that you could possibly have read enough of Kmt's posts to know of his 'measured or accurate wisdom', even if he is packed full of the orthodox way of thinking, even as well as the rest of us, so please don't kiss up.

Let's something straight, ALL OF US.  'Ignorance' is from not knowing the facts or not examining them, inexperience ONLY.  I have read thousands of articles, books, links to web pages, and accounts from Ancient Egypt and elsewere in the ancient world of archaeology to know quite well what is the 'fringe' and the 'orthodox'.  Not being brainwashed into believing everything I read is a choice of a well educated opinion , NOT ignorance of what other opinion, findings, or beliefs.  So get it straight, and cool it with the ever knowing, snide, arrogant attitude if you don't want it in return, fair enough?

Edited by Time Spy, 02 June 2012 - 06:50 PM.

[Leonardo]

Time Spy, on 02 June 2012 - 06:34 PM, said:

Also Leonardo, your post was an excellent example of not having anything to do with the thread or topic whatsoever, not knowing what was going on and then jumnping in to call the kettle black while hurtling stones in any direction at will.  Yeah you REALLY made a point.  Why don't YOU just remove yourself or add to topic.

There is little else I can add to the topic, as Ancient Egyptian history and archaeology is not one of the subjects I know an awful lot about. I have read about the theories of Schoch, who proposed an ancient date for the Sphinx based largely on geology and water erosion, and I have also read the rebuttal of his theories by academics who point to the differing (and poor) qualities of some of the layers of limestone the Sphinx is carved from meaning that erosion is amplified and it only seems to have occurred over such a long time.

I have also read about the quarry the Sphinx sits in, which could not have existed in 10500BCE or thereabouts as the stone quarried from it comprises part of a couple of 5,500 year old pyramids. Unless people want to argue these stones were either left lying around for 5,000 years or were re-used?

I have also read about the other features of the Giza complex which fit in with the planning of it as part of a design incorporating the Sphinx - but that the Sphinx was carved subsequent to some of the other features of the complex (walls, etc).

And I have read all this from sources other than the posts here at UM. Academic sources written by scholars with no more 'agenda' than the fringe authors who perpetuate the 'ancient construction fantasy' putting the Sphinx (and often one or more of the pyramids) back into pre-history, and most of these 'orthodox' scholars have considerably less 'agenda' in their studies.

But all of this has already been pointed out by others, so I have little real information to add, except to point out that those who decry what 'orthodoxy' has written can offer no evidence falsifying the claims of orthodoxy. So some turn to insult and attack in lieu of providing any evidence, and that does not sit comfortably with me. If you, or Scott, can actually offer evidence and engage in reasoned debate then please do so. I have not had the opportunity to read many of your posts, but I have read many of Scott's and his modus operandi has never wavered, thus my declamation of him in my previous post.

If you wish to defend the stance against orthodoxy, fine - I have no problem with that. But if you wish to defend the method he chooses to project that stance then I will take issue and make my own argument as to why he should not be allowed to continue to attempt to insult, attack and bully.

Edited by Leonardo, 02 June 2012 - 07:00 PM.

[Scott Creighton]

Leonardo, on 02 June 2012 - 06:57 PM, said:

Quote

Leo:…those who decry what 'orthodoxy' has written can offer no evidence falsifying the claims of orthodoxy.

SC: And that is because it is not the responsibility of alternatives to falsify Egyptology but rather for Egyptology to prove its own case and, indeed, to provide the means by which their own theories CAN be falsified. That is what good science is about, providing a test by which your theory can be disproved. What tests has Egyptology provided us with whereby we can falsify their theories?

Quote

Leo: So some turn to insult and attack in lieu of providing any evidence…

SC: Says the guy who, when confronted by all manner of academic citations stating that the AEs inverted their cardinal directions from our modern convention, wriggled and squirmed and would probably have sold his granny if it could help him dismiss the evidence I presented. My comments/statements only ever seem to be an insult to you when you cannot properly respond. So, you just lash out, accusing insult and feigning injury. It’s an age-old ortho tactic – play the man, not the ball – though, in my case, not a particularly effective one as you have probably noticed.

Quote

Leo: If you, or Scott, can actually offer evidence and engage in reasoned debate then please do so.

SC: Why should we? The tomb theory is the theory YOU subscribe to.  So YOU present the evidence. And even if I or anyone else here were to present you with counter-evidence, would you accept it, Leo? (Think carefully now).  No, you would not, would you?  Because we have been here before, haven’t we. It’s just not the done thing among the Egypt-apologists to yield one inch, not even when their butt has been so severely roasted in a debate it is now producing buttons.

Quote

Leo: I have not had the opportunity to read many of your posts, but I have read many of Scott's and his modus operandi has never wavered, thus my declamation of him in my previous post.

SC: Well I really wouldn’t expect you to say anything less of me. I seek the truth and the evidence to back up that truth and will NEVER waver from that. When I present you with counter-evidence you just can’t swallow it, even when it comes straight from academia itself. (And that’s usually the point where the toys start getting chucked out the prams folks). In short, where I demand evidence from the Egypt-apologists to back up their theory, all they can offer is faith (small ‘f’).

Quote

Leo: If you wish to defend the stance against orthodoxy, fine - I have no problem with that. But if you wish to defend the method he chooses to project that stance then I will take issue and make my own argument as to why he should not be allowed to continue to attempt to insult, attack and bully.

SC: Where you say “insult” – I say bruised ego. Where you say “attack” – I say challenge. Where you say “bully” - I say confidence.  Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it back.

Best wishes,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton, 02 June 2012 - 08:39 PM.

[Jon101]

Time Spy, on 02 June 2012 - 06:49 PM, said:

Greeetings to you Jon.  Welcome to the forum.  I see the 'long fight' has been witnessed by yourself for almost a month now, WOW.  There is just no way that you could possibly have read enough of Kmt's posts to know of his 'measured or accurate wisdom', even if he is packed full of the orthodox way of thinking, even as well as the rest of us, so please don't kiss up.

Let's something straight, ALL OF US.  'Ignorance' is from not knowing the facts or not examining them, inexperience ONLY.  I have read thousands of articles, books, links to web pages, and accounts from Ancient Egypt and elsewere in the ancient world of archaeology to know quite well what is the 'fringe' and the 'orthodox'.  Not being brainwashed into believing everything I read is a choice of a well educated opinion , NOT ignorance of what other opinion, findings, or beliefs.  So get it straight, and cool it with the ever knowing, snide, arrogant attitude if you don't want it in return, fair enough?

I have read this forum for years, you cretin. I posted for a long while under a different name and then had a long break around the time that Richard Dawkins Forum went Belly up, and I took a break, due to a general disaffection with the 'net.
Back then I was Kalanag. (If any remember).

Edited for emphasis.

Edited by Jon101, 02 June 2012 - 08:59 PM.

[kmt_sesh]

Scott Creighton, on 02 June 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

SC: Your choice. I don’t lose sleep over it. 'First they ignore you' and all that.



SC: I disagree. Nothing in my post was personal. I am questioning only your opinions with regard to Egyptology and in this particular instance, your comments regarding the Sphinx. And I will continue to challenge Egyptology and its apologists. As I said to you before – you should be welcoming someone like me, asking all those pesky, irritable questions in order that you can thoroughly test your theory. Isn’t that what it’s all about? We're in this thing together, folks. I'm here for you.



SC: Your attempt at twisting my words and reading into them something that simply isn’t there, will not crack it. There are no contemporary records that tell us why the early, giant pyramids were built. And yet Egyptology insists they were tombs. Once that particular paradigm is set then everything else has to be made to fit. Back in the day when that particular tomb paradigm was agreed upon by consensus opinion (which doesn’t mean it’s correct), the people who came to that conclusion could not conceive of a non-tomb paradigm, an alternative paradigm that actually fits the extant evidence (e.g. pyramids, temples, causeways, empty, nameless sarcophagi etc, etc) just as well (if not better) than the paradigm they had agreed upon.  So, I see things my own way – you see what someone else has told you to see. I look at the extant evidence, read what the experts have to say about it, weigh it up, and come to my own conclusions. You just accept uncritically what you are told and that’s the real problem here.  You expect others to do likewise – just take the medicine, accept what you’re told.  They’re all tombs – end of story. Hell will freeze over first before I take someone else’s ill-founded opinion over a considered opinion of my own.



SC: I can corroborate my sources too.  How many posts/threads would you like me to show you where I can also present my sources?  And from where I stand what I make up are questions for the Egypt-apologists that they cannot answer. No surprise there.



SC: Well, from where I stand what I see as the real problem here is that you cannot actually deal with someone who asks pesky, irksome questions; someone who asks for real evidence to prove that these early, giant pyramids were conceived and built as tombs. But that figures. You seem to me to be much more in your comfort zone when dishing out from up high the mainstream mantra to some unsuspecting soul with alternative ideas who idly wonders in here whereupon you and your cabal of co-dependent reactionaries sets upon the poor soul with what can only be described as the intellectual equivalent of a mugging. And then you all pat each other on the back – a job well done and retire back to your tombs.

But when someone comes along and dishes as much back at you, oh my - the toys are thrown out the pram, you spit the dummy, take the ball and say you’re not playing anymore because of the nasty big boys. How very grown up.



SC: First of all, I don’t actually give a hee-haw how well you deal (or not, as the case may be) with my criticism of Egyptology and its apologists. I have no respect for a field of study and its apologists that presents a theory (without any real evidence) and expects people to accept it on faith (small ‘f’). Egyptology has ridiculed itself – I merely outline how it has done so.



SC: Oh yes, I forgot – it’s your ball and you’re not playing any more. Hate to break it to you bub, but your ball has a puncture and I will post here as often as I like and for as long as it takes in order to show you and the other Egypt-apologists here the precise nature of that puncture.  And how to fix it.



SC: Yes, I’m not surprised in the least that difficult questions becomes “toxicity” to you.  And it’s only ever a “perfectly decent discussion” for you when it’s going your way and there are no dissenters. Welcome to the real world.

Haste ye back.

Best wishes,

SC

Yes, nothing personal. Right.

I'm not interested in trying to discuss or debate with you right now, Scott. There is little purpose to it. Besides, you already have a thread devoted to your Orion theme, so I don't see how it's fair that you hop on here to ridicule me and to slide more of your theme into this discussion. Keep it in your own space. We've already given it more attention than it deserves, as I see it.

Best wishes, indeed.

[kmt_sesh]

Harte, on 02 June 2012 - 04:52 PM, said:

This is an absolutely accurate description of the attitudes and purposeful ignorance that these two posters constantly exhibit.

It also describes exactly why both of them have been on my "ignore" list for quite some time now.

While we're on the topic of asking people not to respond (as you did,) may I ask you this Kmt?

Please, can you stop quoting these two ingnoramuses so that I don't have to read their tripe?

You are violating my right to low blood pressure.

Also - you could benefit from the judicial use of the ignore function here.  You once commented on my "semi-retirement" from my crusade against ignorance at this website.  The ignore function is a key aspect of how you may accomplish this.




I want to express my sympathy for you then, buddy.

Both mine have been gone for a few years now.  I miss them too.

There is still good conversation to be had here, pal.  Don't you remember?  A few months (or was it a year) back I told you to prepare for the fringe flood to come, back when this board was (temporarily) a calm refuge in a raging internet storm of psuedoarchaeology.

Well, I'm still here, and so are you. So is Diechecker, Cormac, Abe, Emma Acid, The Searcher (though not since April, it seems), Questionmark, Wearer of Hats (the grumpy old fart), Kantzveldt, Lightly, Aus Der Box Skeptisch, Oniomancer, Pax Unum, Shadowsot and...., and....

Damn, now look what you've done. You've trapped me.  I'm afraid I've forgotten someone (or many)

I'll have to go with the "Gilligans Island" closing..."...and the rest..."

Harte

Thanks for your kind words, Harte, especially about my mom. It's been a hard time for me. That's why I kind of blew my top yesterday.

I was on here just to post and discuss, and as usual to share the orthodox stance on the Sphinx. Out of nowhere Scott pops in with his toxic vitriol and writes a post ridiculing Egyptology and ridiculing me but doing nothing to address the points I made. This sort of thing pushes my buttons. I don't deal well with juvenile behavior.

I still post with Time Spy but I've lost interest in trying to deal with Scott. It seems to me he's becoming much like our old friend cladking, who in like vein would hijack threads as an excuse to force his theme into everyone's face, as though that would somehow win people to his favor. The big difference is, as much as cladking tended to annoy posters, he almost always remained reasonable and calm and almost never resorted to personal ridicule.

It's a big difference, indeed. My apologies about your blood pressure—believe me, I understand! I've never resorted to the Ignore function, but I find myself leaning that way toward Scott. It would be a first, but my own blood pressure is an issue, too. I'm not going anywhere, and trust me, it will be a cold day in hell when someone like Scott chases me from UM. There are good people here, many of whom you named. There are also numerous posters here who openly express questionable (or outright bizarre) alternative ideas and yet they do so without resorting to childish personal attacks, so I do not mind dealing with them. In fact, I rather like several of them.

My best course of action is just to ignore those posters who cannot present themselves in a mature and level-headed fashion. I was doing just fine until Scott forced himself into this discussion with his vitriolic and unreasonable post directed against me, so I flew off the handle. I'm calm now. I shall return to my best course of action and simply ignore him as best I can.

[Time Spy]

Jon101, on 02 June 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

I have read this forum for years, you cretin. I posted for a long while under a different name and then had a long break around the time that Richard Dawkins Forum went Belly up, and I took a break, due to a general disaffection with the 'net.
Back then I was Kalanag. (If any remember).

Edited for emphasis.

I don't know, nor do I care what a 'cretin' actually is supposed to be.  Nevertheless you keep proving your point, Kalanag, (whom I don't remember, FYI), so what?   You did NOT add to topic, still haven't.  Calling names and taking sides just fuels the flame war.  This was the point to both you and Leonardo.  I give respect to all, taking it away from yourself by demeaning me and others is your own choice.  Why not just be open to others rights to their opinions.  I talk to Kmt, all the time, and we mostly disagree, but not always.  That's the way with discussion boards.  Just because I disagree with orthodox thinking and many times fringe thinking as well, while offering my own opinions, doesn't seem to me to be ignorance, but an intelligent experienced outlook on life itself.

[gnostic-deity]

god i love this site. all the back and forth banter. its great reading. makes me laugh. thank you

[kmt_sesh]

Jon101, on 02 June 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

My condolences KMT.
I am very grateful for the measured and accurate wisdom you dole out here, and it must seem a sisyphean task, fighting the long fight against ignorance.  The woo does seem to have intensified in the past year, why?, I cannot say, but don't be discouraged.

Jon.

Thank you, Jon101. I appreciate your comment. There aren't actually all that many more fringe posters as I see it, but a couple of them are particularly virulent and noisy. They tend to slither in and destroy what are otherwise reasonable and level-headed discussions. I used to be more patient and tolerant but find it more and more difficult to remain that way. I have no problem debating alternative or fringe posters—Time Spy and I don't see eye to eye on most issues but can usually debate each other calmly, so my own problem is mainly with others. It tends to ruin the fun of being here. I don't post at UM to engage in flame wars, which seem childish and unproductive to me. Most fringe and alternative posters here are a lot more civil than others.

My problem right now is mainly with Scott, as you might have seen from his recent posts. I hope to correct that by ignoring him for a while, which is probably best for both him and me. If necessary I'll just duck out of this discussion, or at least respond only to posters who don't resort to personal attacks. I feel bad for the L, who started what should be a nice debate but has degenerated into name calling.

I think I remember you in your earlier manifestation as Kalanag. In any case I'm glad you're back.