"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

quote:

---

Since the question is only whether it is UNCERTAIN that Tuthmosis defaced Hatshepsut's inscriptions there is no need to give Tyldesly's opinion that he did not precedence over the majority opinion that he did.

---

Would you mind elucidating for us, or at least reduce the convolution inherent in that comment so that the less academically fortunate among us can clearly know what you're saying? Gracias

quote:

---

When you understand that fallacious reasonign and appealing to uncertainties cannot make your case then we will have made real progress.

---

I hope you consider heeding your own advice, as you have all too well exhibited precisely the same trait of alluding to "uncertainties" in order to disparage your opponent(s).

So you are basically admitting with that post that your theory is bollocks?Frankly I've not seen anything conclusive from either side on this matter.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 07-29-2004 10:14 AM

quote:

---

Easy, Hydarnes. It's you we're talking about.

---

If you want to change the subject by diverging the original contention, that is fine by me, but do not forget to retract the erroneous statement you made, if you would have us believe that there is going to be a reasonable amount of dignity in your stipulations.

quote:

---

I'm not asking for the Moon, Hydarnes, and since I'm only observing this thread I'm not interested in taking sides.

---

But indeed you ARE manifesting partiality by failing to require of my detractors what you have so vehemently requested of me. I have no problem with you asking me to source something, but your ad hominem tactics betrayed an unmistakable degree of bias on your part.And since there has been a paucity for regular citation of sources on all sides of this conflict, there is no reason for you to exclusively penalize me for not abiding by what everyoneis obliged to do.Either demonstrate a sense of fairness in your requests, or refrain entirely.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-29-2004 10:25 AM

quote:

---

So you are basically admitting with that post that your theory is bollocks?
Frankly I've not seen anything conclusive from either side on this matter.

---

Actually, I'm questioning your sincerity. Perhaps you might want to investigate an issue before proffering your predispositions.

It seems simple enough to me. If i wished to argue that Tyldesley was correct then I would need to support her view over the others. Since I only wish to argue that the matter is uncertain I do not need to do that - all I need is a credible source arguing against the consensus. Tyldesley will do very nicely.And no, I have not relied on uncertainties to make my point. Indeed the point you are disputing is a side comment- I did offer an explanation of why Thutmosis III might do such a thing - and I note that you did not dispute that. Indeed pointing to a single uncertainty is not itself a problem. It is the heavy reliance on uncertainty to dismiss all contrary evidence that is the problem. Because if there is no reliable evidence then how can we come to any conclusions at all ? You guys need to produce strong supporting evidence - and so far we haven't seen even one significant piece of evidence for Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history. Invoking uncertainty to dismiss the stronger evidence against you isn't enough but it seems to be the best Lysimachus can manage.

quote:

---

Tu quoque, however, is a fallacy. Is there some reason you're so resistant to follow the rules? Here's the rule, just for reference:

---

I only alluded to the fact in the hopes of having you recognize the inconsistency you're exhibiting.

quote:

---

It seems simple enough to me. If i wished to argue that Tyldesley was correct then I would need to support her view over the others.

---

Since you obviously aren't understanding what I meant, let me make it black and white.You countered Lysimachus with a "possibility" in order to refute his placement of events. The fact is, more people agree that Thutmosis was responsible for erasing Hatshepsut's memory, unless of course you have a more viable candidate.This thread is deteriorating into semantics.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-29-2004 10:31 AM

Nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public.
H. L. MenckenI'm so glad you asked. It's been years since I've had the delight of Mencken's wit. More of his quotes can be found here:H. L. Mencken Quotes - The Quotations Pagea smattering to whet your appetites:The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
H. L. MenckenIt is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry.
H. L. MenckenWe are here and it is now. Further than that all human knowledge is moonshine.
H. L. MenckenI herewith return you to your regular scheduled program.peace,
lfen

I wasn't aware that the subject of our conversation (specifically between us) was anything but my request for additional information in order to sunstantiate your claims. Are you referring to the statement I made that others have, at times, substantiated controversial claims?Why would I retract a true statement? Again, you're free to ask them to substantiate whatever claims you demand under the rule that I mentioned. And no part of my requests have been "vehement"; I'm not an admin, Hydarnes. I'm just a guy asking for more information than you've been providing in order to substantiate claims that you've offered as true. To what degree have I attacked you as a person? To have "tactics", I would have to be a part of the debate or be arguing against your position, which I am not.I'm simply asking for more information, which as yet you have resisted supplying. I confess I find your reticence puzzling; surely if you possess the level of expertise to which you've repeatedly alluded, a wide variety of sources must be at your very fingertips. Again, I'm not an admin, Hydarnes. I have no ability here to "penalize" you for anything.I haven't asked you for anything that you're not free to ask others for, including myself. As I pointed out, tu quoque is a fallacy, and never a defense of your own actions. There's certainly no requirement that I ask others for citations on your behalf. If you're dissatisfied with the level of citation so far, why don't you correct it by raising the bar? Why do you think that I'm going to be able to read your mind and determine which claims you found controversial enough to merit substantiation?

There's nothing inconsistent about asking for substantiation of claims that I find controversial, and I hardly see how you're being "punished" by being asked to follow rules that you agreed to in the first place.

As I have already pointed out I did NOT rely on uncertainty to counter the point. Moreover there wasn't a significant point to counter in the first place.On the other hand when I introduced Tydesley as source you did indeed ask :
"So is she to be granted more credence than the majority?"So no, it is not a semantic issue. There is no doubt over what you said or that my point directly responds to your statement.And yes this thread is going downhill because you are dragging it down. If you want it to be otherwise then drop the ill-founded attemtps at nitpicking and produce some real evidence for Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history.

I don't think we need to footnote any statement we make.
It's undoable and we're not writing our master thesis here.
I think you should show proof when others ask for it and show pictures/websites/quotes when it's obvious that a statement is totally new, but not for every statement we make.Lucy

---

Bible
Search Results
"Death & Dead" were found 827 times in 751 verses.Thats a Whole Lotta Suffering"Dear God, I understand that if I fail to believe in you, I'll burn in Hell for all eternity. Thanks for being such a good sport about it." -- Dr. Oswald Pratt

This thread is degenerating into a pissing contest. If it continues the thread will be closed. At any time, any poster can request of another supporting evidence for assertions. In a thread of this length and magnitude, I am not going to insist that every claim and utterance be footnoted and commentated to death. BUT, if and when someone requests said evidence, footnotes, commentary, whatever...I expect it to be supplied or the assertion dropped.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com
http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

crashfrog

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that the subject of our conversation (specifically between us) was anything but my request for additional information in order to sunstantiate your claims.

---

(Well tra-la, you ensured that it was.)I will reiterate again. If you would like a certain claim(s) that I have made substantiated by some reference or source, just bring them to my attention. It is unnecessary, however, to think that I must reference every commonly understood fact about ancient Egypt unless it appears to be more esoteric. But I hope you don’t mind if I skip over all the red herring you’ve been gratuitously dispensing.

quote:

---

I'm simply asking for more information, which as yet you have resisted supplying. I confess I find your reticence puzzling; surely if you possess the level of expertise to which you've repeatedly alluded, a wide variety of sources must be at your very fingertips.

---

False. I have on routine occasions, since your initial chastisement, granted you full permission to inquire the reference or source for statements I have made. I am not, however, going to proceed to needlessly waste my time tracing every source for commonly understood knowledge of Ancient Egypt to make you feel better about who you’re going to trust. I’m distinctly on the premise that people are somewhat familiar with the topic they are dialoguing. If individuals are going to manifest extraordinary ignorance with what I consider fundamental to basic Ancient Egyptian knowledge, I am going to supply an appropriate remark, because either they sincerely aren’t awareand therefore don’t qualify for discussing--or feigning it for their own means. But who is going to tell? The point needs to be gotten across.If you would like to simply increase your understanding of ancient Egypt, that’s perfectly understandable, and if you insist, I would strongly suggest having a separate discussion more pertinent to that issue because, if you haven’t noticed already, this one is more tethered to the Exodus account and objections being raised regarding possible viable scenarios.

quote:

---

I'm simply asking for more information, which as yet you have resisted supplying.

---

I’ve given you full permission to inquire on numerous occasions, so stop lying to yourself and everyone here.The sources that I derive my information from are broad and multitudinous, rendering it virtually impossible to give you a general list by which I could cite off-hand listings. If you have seen something relevant to the discussion that you want referenced, by all means do so, but be reasonable. So far you have not been.

quote:

---

I confess I find your reticence puzzling;

---

Are you really missing something or just playing coy?

quote:

---

Are you referring to the statement I made that others have, at times, substantiated controversial claims?
Why would I retract a true statement?

---

I would like you to support that. It seemed to bear the markings of a Parthian shot, and I don’t want to have to ask you again.

quote:

---

To what degree have I attacked you as a person? To have "tactics", I would have to be a part of the debate or be arguing against your position, which I am not.

---

Why, you insinuated disingenuous motives to my character and resorted to your own imaginary conceptions to justify it.

quote:

---

I'm just a guy asking for more information than you've been providing in order to substantiate claims that you've offered as true.

---

And I want you to cite specifics in order to make it easier for me to address and ultimately satisfy you (if that’s even possible).Instead you seemed to replace your innocent commentaries (regarding claims you had difficulty accepting) with snide innuendos about some hidden agenda I might be [surreptitiously?] fostering. When you challenge me so generally for sources it conveys the appearance of disparagement rather than a bona fide inquiry.

quote:

---

surely if you possess the level of expertise to which you've repeatedly alluded, a wide variety of sources must be at your very fingertips.

---

Au contraire. There is much information that can only be obtained via libraries (not to mention unmarked web info), unless you expect me to suddenly drive over to a local library and conjure up all my past years of research with an exhaustive battery of credentialed authors. Let’s get real here. Even you don’t believe what you’re saying.No hard feelings btw. I want these petty decoys to be resolved so we can return to the issue being discussed.

quote:

---

As I have already pointed out I did NOT rely on uncertainty to counter the point. Moreover there wasn't a significant point to counter in the first place.
On the other hand when I introduced Tydesley as source you did indeed ask :
"So is she to be granted more credence than the majority?"

​

So no, it is not a semantic issue. There is no doubt over what you said or that my point directly responds to your statement.

​

And yes this thread is going downhill because you are dragging it down. If you want it to be otherwise then drop the ill-founded attemtps at nitpicking and produce some real evidence for Wyatt's rewrite of Egyptian history.

---

The fact is, you apprently just said it so you could have something to dispute on and add ammo to your morass of skeptical questions.Gotta go to work, I'll address some other things that I missed this evening.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-30-2004 08:55 PM