SMSW KHUFU (Gang, followers of Khufu)

[mstower]

Your claim, dear boy. Now back it up. We're all waiting.

Best wishes,

SC

—and here we see just how deep Creighton’s disinterested search for truth goes. I’ve cited a source. He won’t look at it.

So much he cares for leaving readers of this board better informed.

In Creighton’s world of fantasy, my citing a source (normal academic protocol) is a species of con, and it really says something other than I say it says, and for the many years I’ve been citing it, I’ve gratuitously risked exposure.

So go on, Creighton! Expose me! It’s just the opportunity you’ve been looking for.

But Creighton won’t do this, will he?—because Creighton knows in his heart of hearts that things are not as he would wish them to be and looking at the book could only deliver another rebuff to his crackpot notions. So he compensates (while he can) by petty point-scoring, at the expense of truth.

M.

[Scott Creighton]

And so you link to yet another thread I started in which you stick your twopence worth in. Who's stalking who, mstower? Who is the real creep?

ms: No, Creighton, I’m talking about you attaching yourself to this topic some five years ago, using one of my scans, lifted from Frank Doernenburg’s site, which clearly credits the image to me:

SC: First of all--the topic here concerns the alleged U23 glyph in Campbell's Chamber. Show us all where that topic is discussed in any of those previous threads.

Secondly--I will raise and discuss ANY topic I damn well please, and discuss it with anyone I please. That you gave Doernenburg a drawing (a fact of which I knew not at the time) and that I raised a legitimate question concerning it, again, has NOTHING (caps for emphasis only--not shouting at you) to do with the topic being discussed here. Rather I suspect this is all just a diversionary tactic to allow you to slip away from presenting the evidence you claim exists to support your claim in this thread--you weren't slow to present that page from Vyse's diary, so why the shyness now?

Sitchin's claims aren't your personal little fiefdom, mstower. Anyone is free to discuss Sitchin's claims and they are not in any way obligated to discuss them with you. Sitchin is now deceased and has been for a number of years now. You can let him go now, mstomer. Don't let his ghost become a monkey on your back--he can't hurt you anymore.

Now--back to the land of the living. You made a claim in this thread that hieratic form of U23 existed before the fifth dynasty and that the glyph in Campbell's Chamber is standardly rendered as such, no less. You cite a book--that's easy but it doesn't back up your claim for the readers here on UM. If you can publish a page from Vyse's diary, why the reluctance to offer us the evidence you claim exists in Goedicke's book. Surely it can't be more than a page or so? Go on--you know you want to.

Best wishes,

SC

[mstower]

So where in Moller's text* does he ever say that the hieratic examples did not exist before the dates he's written, specifically, and not that he's just taken an overall view of many of the hieratic symbols from the 5th dynasty on? As far as I can tell Moller makes no such specific claim.

* Hieratische palaographie die aegyptische buchschrift in ihrer entwicklung von der funften dynasty bis zur romischen kaiserzeit

cormac

The study is evidence-driven and Möller worked with what was available at the time.

Here in summary is the state of play circa 1990:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9i8L8qxSsM4C&pg=PA93&dq="estate+records+of+the+fourth+dynasty"

M.

[mstower]

[drone, drone, drone]

Perhaps you’re simply too stupid to grasp the point, so I’ll try again:

You are as capable of putting this material on the Web as I am. If you care so much, why don’t you?

M.

[Scott Creighton]

ms: Perhaps you’re simply too stupid to grasp the point, so I’ll try again:

You are as capable of putting this material on the Web as I am. If you care so much, why don’t you?

SC: You see, mstower, this is where you are getting it all wrong. You equate the fact that someone hasn't read a particular book with "stupidity". It's not "stupidity" but merely ignorance. Ignorance can be remedied very easily--stupidity most often can't. It is actually quite stupid to confuse "stupidity" with ignorance, which is what you do constantly in your posts, not just with me but with most others. If you genuinely thought I were stupid, you most certainly would not have given me the time of day over the years and you most certainly would have crushed the points I have raised. As it happens, you are the one who ended up being on the wrong end of a Glasgow kiss. But you still have time here, mstower, not to be on the wrong side of history.

When we make a claim the burden of proof rests with us--and not someone else--to prove the claim we make. Prove your claim, mstower--prove it and avoid yet another Glasgow kiss.

Best wishes,

SC

[cormac mac airt]

The study is evidence-driven and Möller worked with what was available at the time.

Here in summary is the state of play circa 1990:

http://books.google....fourth dynasty"

M.

Which is no less than what should be expected and thanks for the link. I'm already aware that hieratic script predates the 5th dynasty and some of it (possibly all) likely dates as early as the Pre-dynastic Period. My point is that nowhere AFAIK does Moller claim his book to be a definitive source for every example of each hieratic figure but starts his analysis at the 5th Dynasty, as a general guideline, and continues to Roman times. Which means that his book shouldn't be misrepresented, particularly in this thread, as making claims that it doesn't.

cormac

[mstower]

SC: You see, mstower, this is where you are getting it all wrong. You equate the fact that someone hasn't read a particular book with "stupidity". It's not "stupidity" but merely ignorance. Ignorance can be remedied very easily--stupidity most often can't. It is actually quite stupid to confuse "stupidity" with ignorance, which is what you do constantly in your posts, not just with me but with most others. If you genuinely thought I were stupid, you most certainly would not have given me the time of day over the years and you most certainly would have crushed the points I have raised. As it happens, you are the one who ended up being on the wrong end of a Glasgow kiss. But you still have time here, mstower, not to be on the wrong side of history.

When we make a claim the burden of proof rests with us--and not someone else--to prove the claim we make. Prove your claim, mstower--prove it and avoid yet another Glasgow kiss.

Best wishes,

SC

Still the point escapes you. I’ll try again.

You make out that you care—you really, really care—about what’s in this book. Yet you won’t make any effort to look at it.

You want other people to see it? You can copy and scan and deal with any copyright issues as easily as I can.

If you cared as much as you say you care, you’d do it yourself, not whinge and whine for me to do it for you.

Savvy?

M.

[mstower]

Which is no less than what should be expected and thanks for the link. I'm already aware that hieratic script predates the 5th dynasty and some of it (possibly all) likely dates as early as the Pre-dynastic Period. My point is that nowhere AFAIK does Moller claim his book to be a definitive source for every example of each hieratic figure but starts his analysis at the 5th Dynasty, as a general guideline, and continues to Roman times. Which means that his book shouldn't be misrepresented, particularly in this thread, as making claims that it doesn't.

cormac

With that I agree entirely.

Weird misunderstandings and misrepresentations are what we may expect, in some contexts, from some people, no matter how plainly things are explained.

M.

[Scott Creighton]

Still the point escapes you. I’ll try again.

You make out that you care—you really, really care—about what’s in this book. Yet you won’t make any effort to look at it.

SC: Really? Show me where I state I care about what’s in Goedicke’s book? Why should I care since it is not I that has anything to prove? You are the one who claims your contention is supported by what is in Goedicke’s book—so get busy. Now you can attempt to try and twist this around and foist the burden of proof onto me--it ain't gonna stick. Everyone here knows who made the claim and who we should be expecting to back up that claim with clear evidence. So, mstower, get the relevant page and you'll shut me up on this question. I can’t say fairer than that now, can I?

Best wishes,

SC

Edited April 28, 2014 by Scott Creighton

[cormac mac airt]

Next question, based on the following (from Post #44):

“Before the start of the fifth dynasty, about 2450 BC, certain hieroglyphs that depict living creatures, were drawn in some detail. In the illustration here quail chicks are drawn with head, body and legs with multiple strokes reproduced (left character). From the fifth dynasty, these characters are simplified, until finally, the quail chick is drawn heavily stylized with only two trains, cf. […]The quail chicks also appears in the name of Cheops […]The sign is clearly reproduced in the style of hieratic before the simplification of the fifth dynasty - body, head, and the two legs are executed significantly… Completely correct so for a sign of an authentic inscription from the time of Cheops, a king of the fourth dynasty…”

WHY are the bold portions above being misrepresented as applying to the "mr" symbol (the chisel) when Moller is specifically talking about living creatures and the simplification of those signs? I've yet to come across a chisel that was alive.

cormac

[mstower]

SC: Really? Show me where I state I care about what’s in Goedicke’s book? Why should I care since it is not I that has anything to prove? You are the one who claims your contention is supported by what is in Goedicke’s book—so get busy. Now you can attempt to try and twist this around and foist the burden of proof onto me--it ain't gonna stick. Everyone here knows who made the claim and who we should be expecting to back up that claim with clear evidence. So, mstower, get the relevant page and you'll shut me up on this question. I can’t say fairer than that now, can I?

Best wishes,

SC

Mr Weasel weasels again.

You care and you very obviously care. You don’t have to “state” it when you harp on it.

You don’t have anything to prove? Oh no, Creighton, you don’t weasel out of it like that. You’ve made claims here, stronger claims than I have, about how this character was written before the fifth dynasty, how certain we may be on the question and the judgements this certainty warrants. You’re the one claiming, contrary to what specialists from Lepsius on have said, that the character in the pyramid is anachronistic. Burden of proof on you, Creighton! I’m just saying it’s there—and no case of merit has been made against it. If you don’t care, you should care, because you have far more to prove than I have—including (not a small thing) your highly fictitious rewriting of the history of hieratic.

You care, if only because of what I’ve said. You so, so want to prove me wrong, yet you won’t lift a finger to do it. Now, hectoring and point scoring—that’s much more in your line!

*snip*

M.

Edited April 28, 2014 by Saru
Removed namecalling

[mstower]

Next question, based on the following (from Post #44):

WHY are the bold portions above being misrepresented as applying to the "mr" symbol (the chisel) when Moller is specifically talking about living creatures and the simplification of those signs? I've yet to come across a chisel that was alive.

cormac

I think it was Markus Pössel who wrote this bit—but yes, it’s quite specific. You understand it as I understand it and I really can’t see how it could be made any clearer.

M.

[cormac mac airt]

I think it was Markus Pössel who wrote this bit—but yes, it’s quite specific. You understand it as I understand it and I really can’t see how it could be made any clearer.

M.

I stand corrected, it was Pössel and not Möller. I was paying more attention to what was written than who wrote it. In any case there's really no way to misinterpret it since it quite specifically concerns animal forms of hieratic script and has nothing to do with such forms as the "mr" (chisel) form. Which again begs the question, why is it being misrepresented?

cormac

[questionmark]

I stand corrected, it was Pössel and not Möller. I was paying more attention to what was written than who wrote it. In any case there's really no way to misinterpret it since it quite specifically concerns animal forms of hieratic script and has nothing to do with such forms as the "mr" (chisel) form. Which again begs the question, why is it being misrepresented?

cormac

'cause else they can flush the brain maxturbation down the toilet?

[mstower]

From here:

http://xoomer.virgil...yn3-Nebkara.htm

Original publication on archive.org:

https://archive.org/...ge/270/mode/2up

We may note at 19 two examples of a character which is probably cursive mr (chisel), corresponding to Gardiner U23.

This appears to be a crew name, probably an implicit plural, ?-ka smrw aprw. A similarity to the writing in the pyramid of Khufu will, I think, be noted.

This is fourth or third dynasty.

M.

Edited May 1, 2014 by mstower