Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
egyptian lad

The Giants of ancient egypt are fact

531 posts in this topic

Everyone knows it couldn't have been giants, because the aliens did it, at least, that's what Stargate taught me.

Edited by Hasina
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone knows it couldn't have been giants, because the aliens did it, at least, that's what Stargate taught me.

Indeed! :w00t:

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't handle dissenting views then perhaps you shouldn't be on UM.

cormac

Priceless coming from you. Absolutely priceless.

And clearly I've struck a nerve as the cabal is instantly out in force in response. Sorry boys, but your usual little game of lining up to take turns hurling abuse won't work with me.

The diapers are clearly messed. And so easily too... :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so I posted a pic of a Ramses the Not That Great.

Lol.

Those damn mummies all look alike.

.

That's a stereotype! It also happens to be somewhat true.

The mummy in my avatar is a Late Period man named Harwa. He's at the Field Museum. I recently came across something funny, when I was looking at a photo of Ramesses II's mummy on my iPad while standing next to Harwa. Now, Harwa lived more than 600 years after Ramesses II, but when I held up my iPad with Ramesses' photo right next to Harwa's unwrapped face, it was hilarious how much the two looked alike.

Now my colleagues and I joke that Harwa is a descendant of Ramesses II. Any truth to that? Almost certainly not, but the resemblance is striking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priceless coming from you. Absolutely priceless.

And clearly I've struck a nerve as the cabal is instantly out in force in response. Sorry boys, but your usual little game of lining up to take turns hurling abuse won't work with me.

The diapers are clearly messed. And so easily too... :yes:

Again, stop whining and grandstanding and start posting something of substance, something we can discuss or debate. Otherwise, you're wasting your time as well as ours and taking this discussion off topic.

Edit: Typo

Edited by kmt_sesh
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Priceless coming from you. Absolutely priceless.

And clearly I've struck a nerve as the cabal is instantly out in force in response. Sorry boys, but your usual little game of lining up to take turns hurling abuse won't work with me.

The diapers are clearly messed. And so easily too... :yes:

And now you should post something substantial, or you will be considered to be nothing but a troll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed! :w00t:

cormac

Now you sound like Teal'c. He was a giant. Kind of.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to get out more. It's got NOTHING to do with kmt_sesh. He's not any kind of expert on Egyptology, despite acting like the Big Cheese in that regard here for you and the rest of the regular cabal. If he doesn't want to read alternative theories, he shouldn't be on the Unexplained Mysteries board. If he were half as knowledgeable as he thinks he would be on a proper, academic Egyptology forum. But it's easy to be on here every day taking pot shots at wacky theories about giants, isn't it? Come wading in with the "facts" about ancient Egypt when required. The big fish in a very small pond. Whoopee do. Wouldn't actually cut the mustard in the real world though.

The little gang who post regularly on here - including yourself - really do need your little bubble burst from time to time. You are nothing. No thread, no theory, no field and certainly no thoughts of any poster need be held up against what you think. You are not the measure. You are irrelevant, a legend in your own minds.

You can pull your hair out all you like. You only do that to make yourselves feel superior. Hence you actually enjoy it.

But when you come up against someone of real substance, you mess your diapers. :td:

From what I have read, kmt_sesh does spend time on "proper academic Egyptian forums". He also reads much of what is posted as alternative theories though he may pass those theories that reference the same website(s) he has looked at from the 12 previous posters that referenced it/them. I can not say if he is or is not an expert, but what he's learned, his research and his work make him closer to an expert in Egyptology than you or I or most of UM will ever be.

Wacky theories can't be theories until there is evidence, you know facts, to support the wacky hypothesis. What doesn't cut the mustard in the real world are the unsupported, unevidenced theories that are presented by some here on UM.

There is something else besides evidence (facts) that is used here by kmt-sesh and others when discussing theories that are radical and that is critical thinking. If more of those that present their unusual theories would first download and then use the critical thinking app, they might understand that the sky is blue, not red and the red color hidden by advanced technology while the world wide conspiracy keeps us in the dark about the real color.

In the case of fringe theory vs evidence and critical thinking we await someone of real substance, perhaps then our bubble will be burst.

Edited by Quaentum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will close by suggesting to you what I suggest to other fringe proponents who are so easily rattled: stop trying to make this personal by flaming a forum member, and start trying to support your own beliefs in a productive way.

In what way am I "fringe"? I don't recall saying anything - myself - that would place me there... although I do support open debate. However, in your bitter little personal war against this weird thing you call "the fringe" you need to learn to take as well as you dish it out. You were accusing Mr Creighton in another thread just a few days ago of "stalking" you simply because he had the temerity to reply to something you had posted on a public forum. How dare anyone question you! How dare anyone reply to you on your own little forum! Tut tut!

Then you called him "creepy". That's not a word - if I were you - that I'd throw around too carelessly. Really.

It's easy for you guys - when you've never been outside of Jerkwater USA - to think that the Internet is some kind of substitute for real life, one in which you can invent your own funny little bubble to exist within, creating your own given roles of expertise on here, holding each other up in your delusions, ganging up when required to beat up the unsuspecting but well intentioned soul who dares to post something new or start a thread on a topic that's a bit "out there". That's what you get off on, that's where you get your kicks. Patronising, bullying, sneering... beleiving all the time that you're so much better than anyone else who comes along. Yet the fact that you all spend so much of your time - very very bitterly, and very very snidely - arguing on a forum that is specifically for Unexplained Mysteries, rather than in some mainstream arena where you wouldn't have to spend all your precious time tearing your hair out and dealing with these "losers" says it all really.

Your battle against the "fringe" is just your own desperate attempt at self-justification. It seems to be the ongoing source of your rather puzzling and laughable sense of self-importance. Otherwise, why not simply ignore it?

Edited by Alcibiades9
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you will be considered to be nothing but a troll.

You are free to consider whatever you like. I'm glad you think it matters. Given that you seem to think it's still 1999 and resorting to calling someone a "midget" or a "troll" at the first instance is the way to shine in Internet debates rather renders the whole point mute... :tu:

Edited by Alcibiades9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way am I "fringe"? I don't recall saying anything - myself - that would place me there... although I do support open debate. However, in your bitter little personal war against this weird thing you call "the fringe" you need to learn to take as well as you dish it out. You were accusing Mr Creighton in another thread just a few days ago of "stalking" you simply because he had the temerity to reply to something you had posted on a public forum. How dare anyone question you! How dare anyone reply to you on your own little forum! Tut tut!

Then you called him "creepy". That's not a word - if I were you - that I'd throw around too carelessly. Really.

It's easy for you guys - when you've never been outside of Jerkwater USA - to think that the Internet is some kind of substitute for real life, one in which you can invent your own funny little bubble to exist within, creating your own given roles of expertise on here, holding each other up in your delusions, ganging up when required to beat up the unsuspecting but well intentioned soul who dares to post something new or start a thread on a topic that's a bit "out there". That's what you get off on, that's where you get your kicks. Patronising, bullying, sneering... beleiving all the time that you're so much better than anyone else who comes along. Yet the fact that you all spend so much of your time - very very bitterly, and very very snidely - arguing on a forum that is specifically for Unexplained Mysteries, rather than in some mainstream arena where you wouldn't have to spend all your precious time tearing your hair out and dealing with these "losers" says it all really.

Your battle against the "fringe" is just your own desperate attempt at self-justification. It seems to be the ongoing source of your rather puzzling and laughable sense of self-importance. Otherwise, why not simply ignore it?

Hi Al,

SC: I simply couldn't have said it any better myself. When these Consensus Egyptology zealots are confonted with any actual facts that disprove or contradict what they believe, they label you a "stalker". It's a tactic these self-appointed guardians of Consensus Egyptology use to try and stifle debate, especially so when that debate isn't going in their favour. I reckon they were all bullied at school or something and are using these forums as some means of exacting some kind of revenge on the bad, bad, cruel world. Payback time. Except they don't actually like it when someone can give as much back in return. Co-dependents reactionaries. There is no other way to describe them.

Best,

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But all that proof mysteriously disappeared...

And then we have that South African professor with his 7+ feet tall Homo Heidelbergensis.

Maybe that proof will be lost soon too?

I doubt it.

+++++

EDIT:

You consider "Ancient Aliens" a reliable source of information?

"Take a look at the jaw bone. I saw that skull - or one similar to it"

You saw it in a museum?

.

let me see....

firstly, nobody is considered a "perfect" source. The story of the Red Giants in Nevada was local Indian legend and oral tradition. so the fact that many years later, anglo settler farmers fiding those skeletons in that exact cave - still with evidences of a fire at the cave's entrance (that is how the Indians killed them) dovetails with what the Indians had claimed all along.. All Ancient Aliens ever did was report it and show the skulls.

you can choose not to believe them, that is your perogative but it is difficult to change history. Those skulls do exist and I would not be in such a hurry to dismiss the local Indians, local farmers, and Ancient Alien folk out-of-hand simply because the result displeases you.

No, I was not at the museum, the AA people went there to film the skulls in comparison to a human skull.

the picture in the link I provided is very much what I saw, incredibly thick jaw bone - but you really need to see a human jawbone next to it to get a grasp of it all.

all in all I thought the evidences of Lord Pacal were even better than that. his coffin, BTW, was 9' 9" long LOL!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you guys are being too hard on the so-called skeptics.

They really do want to argue the facts but their hands are tied behind their backs by the orthodox

assumptions. If you don't accept that the pyramids are tombs dragged up ramps by changeless and

superstitious bumpkins then they simply can't argue with you. Everything they "know" is based on

these assumptions so all they can do if you raise a point is refer you to someone who can "explain"

it to you.

The sad part is they don't really see this. They think they're open minded and fair and they are

blind to the simple fact that we all have the same evidence and it's no deeper than a kidde pool.

There's no ocean of evidence or cultural context but they've used thje argument so long they be-

lieve someone else has the key to the castle. There's no key and there's no evidence and if you

don't accept the assumptions all they can do is repeat the same facts and assumptions ad nauseum.

They will not assist those who don't agree. This isn't Kansas any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what way am I "fringe"? I don't recall saying anything - myself - that would place me there... although I do support open debate. However, in your bitter little personal war against this weird thing you call "the fringe" you need to learn to take as well as you dish it out. You were accusing Mr Creighton in another thread just a few days ago of "stalking" you simply because he had the temerity to reply to something you had posted on a public forum. How dare anyone question you! How dare anyone reply to you on your own little forum! Tut tut!

Then you called him "creepy". That's not a word - if I were you - that I'd throw around too carelessly. Really.

I don't want to drag Scott into this because it's best for now that he and I simply not communicate. Nothing good comes of it (and by this I don't mean a useful debate because there's little but bad blood between us, and it's not necessary, in my opinion, to bring that into a public discussion). But if you go back and review those posts in question—and there are more, from an earlier discussion—Scott wasn't replying to any specific evidentiary points I was making. He was merely unloading on me, personally. I have no need for that. If someone wants to debate my, I'm all for it, but Scott seems more interested in nitpicking at me personally or in generically ridiculing peer-reviewed Egyptological research in general. One cannot build a productive and useful debate or discussion from this.

I honestly don't know what you believe, or if you are truly fringe. But you started this in Post 93 by throwing a fit because cormac mentioned me, and you went on to call all of us with an orthodox bent as "irrelevant." To me, that clearly rings of a dislike of orthodox research, which by implication means fringe. I don't know how else to say it.

It's easy for you guys - when you've never been outside of Jerkwater USA - to think that the Internet is some kind of substitute for real life

I've lived in many places one could call Jerkwater, but for the past dozen years my residence has been Chicago. And Chicago (specifically the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago) happens to be one of the premier places in the world for the study of Egyptology and other fields related to the ancient Near East. So this is hardly Jerkwater USA, and I feel privileged to be affiliated with the O.I. and to work with its staff, including some very prominent Egyptologists. In point of fact I do not spend most of my time on the internet, and I certainly don't use it as a real research tool.

I am lucky to be immersed in the real life of Egyptology, even if I am not an Egyptologist. I am grateful for this experience, and I call some of these people my friends. This is one reason I get bent out of shape when posters lump Egyptologists into some mythical, impossible cabal bent on hiding "the truth" from everyone. All this tells me is that such people do not know Egyptologists, nor do they know the methodology by which Egyptology functions.

, one in which you can invent your own funny little bubble to exist within, creating your own given roles of expertise on here, holding each other up in your delusions, ganging up when required to beat up the unsuspecting but well intentioned soul who dares to post something new or start a thread on a topic that's a bit "out there". That's what you get off on, that's where you get your kicks. Patronising, bullying, sneering... beleiving all the time that you're so much better than anyone else who comes along. Yet the fact that you all spend so much of your time - very very bitterly, and very very snidely - arguing on a forum that is specifically for Unexplained Mysteries, rather than in some mainstream arena where you wouldn't have to spend all your precious time tearing your hair out and dealing with these "losers" says it all really.

Speaking for myself, I rarely resort to unkind interactions with other posters, whoever they are. The only time I find myself sliding into the negative is when someone else fires the first shot. I fully understand I opened my activity in this discussion with a quite negative post, but you are probably not aware of the thread in which egyptian lad previously participated and what went on in there. Were you familiar with it, you would understand my attitude in this one.

So stop generalizing and turning me or anyone else into a boogyman. Either join in the discussion, present your case, support it, or step aside. Do not make it personal. It reflects badly on you alone. As is obvious from recent comments in this discussion.

Your battle against the "fringe" is just your own desperate attempt at self-justification. It seems to be the ongoing source of your rather puzzling and laughable sense of self-importance. Otherwise, why not simply ignore it?

This is a good example of my above point. You've made a couple of foolish remarks about me that have come back to bite you, and you are riled that other posters might like me—both personally and academically. All this reflects is your own insecurity. It was highly unnecessary in the first place to write your Post 93, which served no purpose but to flame me and to take the discussion off course. I feel compelled to reply because I do not like it when people misrepresent me. I don't consider myself any more important or any more intelligent than you, but I'm not the one making such claims. Nor have I ever, against any poster.

I see that Scott has jumped in to reply favorably to one of your posts. Should I throw a fit and rail against you because someone's supporting you? No, I shouldn't, and I won't. I don't care. Nor should you if someone happens to mention me. Now, leave it alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are free to consider whatever you like. I'm glad you think it matters. Given that you seem to think it's still 1999 and resorting to calling someone a "midget" or a "troll" at the first instance is the way to shine in Internet debates rather renders the whole point mute... :tu:

I don't think you're that naive. You know perfectly well what Abe was saying. And it happens to be mentioned in the UM rules:

3d. Trolling:
Do not troll the forums. We define 'trolling' as the act of causing deliberate disruption or offense. Such behaviour usually involves the posting of intentionally false, controversial or offensive comments designed to provoke, bait and annoy other members.

This is exactly what you're guilty of, starting with Post 93. If you disagree with me, review Post 93 and summarize for us how it was relevant to the topic or helpful in some way to the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I honestly don't know what you believe, or if you are truly fringe. But you started this in Post 93 by throwing a fit because cormac mentioned me, and you went on to call all of us with an orthodox bent as "irrelevant." To me, that clearly rings of a dislike of orthodox research, which by implication means fringe. I don't know how else to say it.

I do not necessarily support everything in post 93 but you are misquoting and

mischaracterizing what was said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming for a moment that the work was done by giants, where is the evidence for them?

You see art (be it stonework or funerary illustration or simple paintings) is never a good indication of what did exist, we've had an imagination as a species for as long as we've had a language (given that you need an imagination to understand what "don't go over there, it's dangerous" means without actually going over there to see why it's dangerous), and imagination finds it's freest expression in art.

So, giants would need giant things. giant tools, giant homes, giant knives and forks etc.

Now homes being mudbrick can easily be lost to history. And tools remade time and again ... but surely in all the archaeological detritus we dig up and store, we'd have found one chisel too big for a mundane human to wield? One hammer that even Thor himself would have had trouble with? One scrap of solid evidence.

Legend and myth are ripe with tales of giants. Usually they're violent and hungry for manflesh.

Could that be a race memory of a time when we were neighbours with Neanderthals? Could it be that there were isolated pockets of giants across the globe that were valiantly wiped out by people generations before oral legend became written history? I stress that bit across. the. globe. There are legends of giants from across the world, everyone seems to have tales of nasty neighbours but not a shred of evidence exists for most of them, and what evidence there does exist often as not falls under the "giant eagle" banner of cryptohistory - we all saw the photos but noone can find them anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not necessarily support everything in post 93 but you are misquoting and

mischaracterizing what was said.

Nope. It's pretty well on the mark. Alcibiades9's post to me amounts to sour grapes because BS doesn't outweigh evidence.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that Giants existed.

Why is hard to imagine that Giants existed?! We have had giants animals in all area of the world. Giant penguins in Antartica for example. Its life adaptation. I think we must look for giant bones in areas that were once hard to found food. Look at elaphant. His stomach is big because it was hard to him to find good nutrition food so to survive he must eat a lot of low quality food that his stomach could choose best nutrition from it. So to become Giant we must first asumme that Darwin theory is right and give homo spieces enough time and area with low quality food and you will get Giants.

Hello, They go against the fact of giants in order to save the old biology sciences regarding human creation afrom collapse, thats how the unesco force the archaeologists world wide to hide and kill this truth.

Its a western game over the history to save their false sciences.

Since early childhood and you study the evolution in schools, If giant humans truth appeared>>>>>say good bye for these sciences

The giant humans existed in the same age of dinasour and giant animals.

By the way:

In egypt, there are fossils of giant whales,giant crocodiles,turtles, and accounts of big large dinasour skeletons either.

From the records of ancient egyptians:

there were giant cows and giant horses in ancient egypt, The people were under their legs.

It wasnt a figurative images as they say, but a reality was depicted by the ancient egyptians in some era of early ancient times

I believe that Giants existed.

Why is hard to imagine that Giants existed?! We have had giants animals in all area of the world. Giant penguins in Antartica for example. Its life adaptation. I think we must look for giant bones in areas that were once hard to found food. Look at elaphant. His stomach is big because it was hard to him to find good nutrition food so to survive he must eat a lot of low quality food that his stomach could choose best nutrition from it. So to become Giant we must first asumme that Darwin theory is right and give homo spieces enough time and area with low quality food and you will get Giants.

Hello, They go against the fact of giants in order to save the old biology sciences regarding human creation afrom collapse, thats how the unesco force the archaeologists world wide to hide and kill this truth.

Its a western game over the history to save their false sciences.

Since early childhood and you study the evolution in schools, If giant humans truth appeared>>>>>say good bye for these sciences

The giant humans existed in the same age of dinasour and giant animals.

By the way:

In egypt, there are fossils of giant whales,giant crocodiles,turtles, and accounts of big large dinasour skeletons either.

From the records of ancient egyptians:

there were giant cows and giant horses in ancient egypt, The people were under their legs.

It wasnt a figurative images as they say, but a reality was depicted by the ancient egyptians in some era of early ancient times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing sadder than someone denigrating their own countries history in favor of a fantasy.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin said: "But all that proof mysteriously disappeared..." (the skeletons/shulls)

Sorry I forgot to respond to this point earlier.

I have no idea if those evidences (skulls) have disappeared from the museum or not and I assume they did not,.

AA only filmed it some 1 or 2 years ago, the skulls were there then. (AA debuted in April 2010)

One would think that the existence of these skulls would hav caused a deluge of anthropologists/archaeologists into Nevada but I think it is safe to say that did not happen.

Perhaps in the end, the OP is right, "they" - whoever they are, are hiding all such evidences of giants, I don't know, but if they are, the curator of the museum in question surely screwed up or was accidently uninformed. It would be nice to know if the skulls are there but in the end, people belive what they want to believe and not necessarily what reality is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it preplexing that anyone can seriously contemplate the hypothesis of a giant race building all the monuments of AE, then suddenly disappearing without a trace!

Try to look at the question from a mere common sense point of view. Aside from the fact that 10 meters humans would probably crush their feet and crumble their bones, the hypothesis that any race building huge monuments from the Giza pyramids in the north to Abu Simbel in the south entails an assumption that there was a large enough population of said giants who managed to survive for centuries if not millenea. It follows that there should be an abundance of skeletal remains, tools, utensils, cemeteries, foundations of houses, garbage pits etc; in proportion to the population, scattered all over Egypt. How can the total absence of any of these be explained? They didn't bury their dead, slept under the stars, used only their hands for tools? Bear in mind that Egypt is an ARID environment, that the dry weather and sands have preserved human bodies, loaves of bread, wigs, clothing, papyri...similar delicate organic material which are more than a couple of thousand years old are already exhibited in the Egyptian Museum. How could the remains of 'midgets' survive but nothing of the giants who were supposedly co-existing with them?

As for the 'conspiracy' theory, it is naive to the extreme. The only way for such a cover up is to have individual archaeologists going alone to the desert with a shovel to dig. If one assumes that archaeologists are capable of keeping hundreds of Egyptian workers, for generations, from uttering a word or telling others then this person has never been to Egypt, the villages where these workers come from, and never talked to any of them. The power of 'myth' specially when concerned with ancient monuments, and the "rumor machine" in Egypt should never be underestimated!

Maybe I should add that I am Egyptian, and I did field work in these villages so before my head is bitten off, just consider that I might have 'first hand' idea of what I am talking about

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not necessarily support everything in post 93 but you are misquoting and

mischaracterizing what was said.

I wholeheartedly disagree. How was Post #93 the least contributive to this discussion? I did not misquote or mischaracterize—I called it for what it is.

But if at all possible, I'd like to put this behind us. I apologize for my own negativity in recent posts, although not for the substance of my recent posts. Hopefully we can all be grown-ups at this point, cease with the bickering, and move back on topic (as the most recent posters have).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abramelin said: "But all that proof mysteriously disappeared..." (the skeletons/shulls)

Sorry I forgot to respond to this point earlier.

I have no idea if those evidences (skulls) have disappeared from the museum or not and I assume they did not,.

AA only filmed it some 1 or 2 years ago, the skulls were there then. (AA debuted in April 2010)

One would think that the existence of these skulls would hav caused a deluge of anthropologists/archaeologists into Nevada but I think it is safe to say that did not happen.

Perhaps in the end, the OP is right, "they" - whoever they are, are hiding all such evidences of giants, I don't know, but if they are, the curator of the museum in question surely screwed up or was accidently uninformed. It would be nice to know if the skulls are there but in the end, people belive what they want to believe and not necessarily what reality is.

Well, as you can read from what you quoted from my post, nobody is hiding any remains of 'giants' :

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=234570&st=105#entry4475545

I mean the Homo Heidelbergensis remains from South Africa.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...Scott seems more interested in nitpicking at me personally or in generically ridiculing peer-reviewed Egyptological research in general...

SC: Nitpick you personally? Get over yourself. I present valid counter-arguments and facts against the silly Consensus Egyptology you present. You see only one possible cultural context and that is your great undoing.

Ridiculing peer-reviewed Egyptological research? Just because something is peer-reviewed doesn't make it fact and it certainly doesn't prove anything. If you think otherwise then you are seriously deluded. Alcibides is right - you have some kind of axe to grind against anyone who thinks different to you. You play this passive-aggressive game but your complete hatred of fringe ideas and those who present them isn't hidden too well. Furthermore, you label all such people with the same "fringe" brush, hoping the mud will stick. My own research, as you well know, is very much rooted in the same evidence used by Consensus Egyptology, albeit I interpret some of it differently. You call that "fringe", others call it 'Alternative Egyptology'. But I guess you will have a hissy fit that others could remotely consider that my own research has anything at all to do with Egyptology. Heaven forbid! Such is your pomposity, dismissiveness and downright arrogance.

You hold up peer-review like a cop holds up a badge. There are bad cops out there.

SC

Edited by Scott Creighton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.