"THE EXODUS REVEALED" VIDEO

jar,

quote:

---

And neither of you is much bothered that Tut III, who was pretty well documented, campaigned annually for nearly twenty years all up and down the Eastern Med as far North as Syria and that whole region was under Egyptian domination for the whole time?

​

Or that Amenhotep II, the next in line also campaigned through that whole area as far north as Syria?

---

Because you seem so eager to point out a supposed error in the compatibility of this dynastic hypothesis being proposed here, I would have been inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were AT LEAST marginally familiar with the issue before taking it upon yourself to start disputing matters you know very little about. Your objections however clearly indicate that you are not even aware as to what you are disparaging. Because if you had made some effort to understand it, you would have noticed that there is absolutely no conflict between the Thutmosid conquests that you are reiterating and the chronological scenario in review.I am sure there are individuals here (including myself) who would be more than happy to educate you on the proposed events before you continue to point out fictitious inconsistencies that are already addressed. And since there is absolutely no contradiction between the established accounts of Thutmosis III’s exploits and the scenario associated with the suggested Exodus events, would you mind explaining to me exactly what is being ignored or overlooked?No one here is implying that Thutmosis III (also known as Amenhotep II after assuming emperorshipaccording to this chronology) was the reigning Pharaoh during the Exodus event. In fact, this hypothesis rests heavily and harmonizes with the fact that Thutmosis III (known as Amenhotep II at the time) was in office during Moses’ 40 year excursion into Midian. And do not be too fooled by the fact that there are separate mummies attributed to these characters, as the reliability of these identifications are yet subject to heavy dispute and evaluation.So I really think your current perception of these facts needs to be jarred by some of these new concepts. P.S. BTW, if you are wondering where I came from, I have been reading this topic along with my brother Lysimachus and is why you will notice my earlier input concerning the Pharaohs.HydarnesThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 06-02-2004 05:39 PM

Lucianus,I’ve been perusing this thread for quite sometime now, and during the course of my reading I’ve noticed serious misinformation in your understanding of the issue in question.

quote:

---

If you want to defend that case and Moller's one, explain why the city of Rameses is mentioned in Genesis and Exodus (so, as written by Moses), although it is build by Ramses the Great (roundabout) 150 years later.
You know that Thutmoses IV and the city Of Rameses can not be used for the same period.

---

Your assertion reaches a critical error when one realizes that the city residence Pi-Ramesse is not equivalent to the similarly named Raamses (along with Pithom) mentioned in the Bible. Perhaps it is the same location, but it was not originally built by Rameses II, which would substantiate your argument.There are serious flaws in this assumption for several reasons.1. If the text was referring to the actual city built by Rameses II during the 19th dynasty, then Pi should precede the word Raamses, considering that the name had been in use much earlier than when that king ascended the throne. And also considering that the Bible puts Pi in Pithom, but why not in front of Raamses, if that site parallels with the one mentioned in scripture? Uphill even states:"The use of the word Pi or Per is significant. It has a wide application in Egyptian texts being derived from pr, (House). . . . In a wider context still it stood for a large temple area or the domain of a particular god, cf. Per Amun, Per Re, Per Ptah, etc. This usage introduces an administrative concept and implies a much greater area than the actual temple and its immediate surrounding."--E. P. Uphill, "Pithom and Raamses: Their Location and Significance," Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27 (1968): 292. See also, "Worterbuch der Agyptischen Sprache," I, 511.2. The site known as Qantir, which is also the generally accepted place for Pi-Ramesse has yielded strong evidence to suggest that Rameses built upon an earlier city that predates the latter city in its construction. Furthermore, L. Habachi, Manfred Bietak, Hans Goedicke and others have all indicated that the 18th dynasty occupied the site. Moreover, excavation reveals a pre-hyksos population of Asiatics settling in the area, somewhere during the end of the 12th or beginning of the 13th dynasties. And settlement in the area during the 18th century, well before the Ramessid kings, is confirmed by pottery found in tombs during the reign of Amenemhet III. Qantir was also served as a summer palace for the kings of the 12th and 13th dynasties, as well as for the Hyksos rulers. And the 18th dynasty saw a reoccupation of the site. Because Qantir was already inhabited during the time of Hyksos and earlier, it’s just not possible to attribute the construction of the site to slaves during Rameses II. Needless to say, both candidates for the location of Pithom also clearly show traces of Semitic inhabitation. This on top of the fact that Rameses II was notorious for building over or taking credit for previously constructed locations throughout Egypt. This one shouldn’t come as any surprise.3. Way before the possibility of the Pharaoh Rameses II, we find in Genesis 47:11 that Jacob and his family settled in the land of Raamses (or Goshen), clearly not referring to a city in particular, but a land. Rameses is also found as a title for Pharaohs prior to the character Rameses II (namely, Amenhotep III, who in the proposed hypothesis was the Pharaoh of the Exodus).4. Rameses II does not even fit with the dating of the event. No need to elaborate further on that point.In conclusion then, there is simply no compelling reason to assume that simply because Rameses II built a city bearing the name Pi-Ramesse that it coincides with the Raamses mentioned in scripture.I would like to assume that because you’ve decided to engage in a dialogue about this issue that you would be somewhat informed prior to taking such a definitive stance.

quote:

---

Well. I say again, the wheels found so far are all of the thinner sort. I mean, they have a slim rim which looks as thick as two thumbs. So all you can do is make an assumption. There's nothing wrong with making an assumption, but assumptions don't prove anything. We have only pictures from graves and some buried wheels from tombs. That there were several types during Thutmoses reign might well be true. These wheels we see on pictures seem to present slim rims and slim spokes. The wheels we have from tombs also have slim rims and spokes.

---

I’m happy to see you refraining from a complete dismissal of the possibility, unlike others who have been so motivated by sheer prejudice.Now on to the chariot issue. I think that a few things need to be taken into consideration before dismissing these chariot finds as possibly Assyrian simply for gratifying the desire to negate the discovery as posing any relevance to the Exodus event. Before wildly insinuating that an Assyrian cargo ship possibly lost some chariot wheels while traversing over Aqaba is more than far-fetch, considering that you have yet to establish Assyrian interest or even commerce in that area.The proposition, however, about some of the chariot wheels found at Aqaba to be of Assyrian origin might not be altogether unlikely at all, in fact, the Egyptian army being in possession of Assyrian or any other Semitic or Canaanite chariots would be consistent with Egyptian conquests in that area. Thutmose III records capturing over 800 Canaanite chariots, and expeditions to Assyria during the 18th dynasty were not uncommon.I would also like to remind you that Egyptian and Assyrian chariots during the 18th and 19th dynasties were virtually identical in design.The fact is, the findings in Aqaba support an event supported by much broader data, and which is strong evidence for the Biblical event. The different wheel designs are also indicative of 18th dynasty Egypt, 4, 6 and 8 spokes being used simultaneously during the period in which the Exodus most likely happened.

quote:

---

Now, I know Egytpians were using iron, but hammered iron was not known in Egypt during Thutmoses IV reign. So it might have been cast, like nails, but this is very unlikely on a chariot now is it.
How did coral grow on this wooden structure BtW. It's evidently not been covered with sand, so the wood should have rotted away.

---

Again, some of the chariot wheels identified could be of Assyrian origin, but most likely Egyptian employed. But then again, perhaps they were of Egyptian provenance. We know Egyptians used iron, and no one can say for sure the nature of the iron on the wheels, you seem to be taking this to a more caviling level.I wish I could respond more exhaustively, but I am already late for work work.P.S. Excuse any grammatical errors or mistakes. I don't have time to proofread.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-27-2004 10:32 PM

quote:

---

Isn't it a tad more likely that it's complete BS fabricated by a known fraud Ron Wyatt that even most Creationist groups call a dope.
This would be about the biggest archeological find in history where untold numbers of professional (note the word) archeologists would make their careers on - never mind reporters getting Pulitzers - yet somehow it sank without a trace. LOL

​

Let me see - because it isn't real!

---

You don't begin to know beans about Wyatt's discoveries, and no one is interested in hearing more clueless defamation that isn't worth the post it's written on.

quote:

---

Come on. Most of us here are very familar with Wyatt's claims and realize that he is nothing but a fraud, and not even a very good one. LOL.

---

If your input in this thread is any indication of the level of education acquired by his detractors, then I'm afraid it's pretty egregious.

Lucy,

quote:

---

I didn't state that the city wasn't called Pi-Ramese, Lysimachus did, so I guess it's better to adress these points to him, rather then me.
I can live with the fact that it might have been recovered and might have been older.

---

For some reason the first part of my sentence got corrupted, and failed to grammatically convey what it was meant to. Please re-read for clarification. Apologies for the inconvenience.

quote:

---

That doesn't change the fact that Pithom isn't and it's mentioned in the same sentence in exodus.
The fact that the word Pi wasn't used before Ramesse is an argument from Lysimachus, not mine. So, if we can conclude that we shouldn't be looking for Pi-Ramesse, that's fine by me, Pithom has been found and dated.

---

Obviously you didn’t bother to carefully read my post before hastening to reply, or you would have noticed that I already addressed the issue of Pithom, and both candidate locations have also been shown to predate Rameses II in occupation. Furthermore, I was addressing specifically the original contention that you made in reference to Rameses, as you stated here:

quote:

---

explain why the city of Rameses is mentioned in Genesis and Exodus (so, as written by Moses), although it is build by Ramses the Great (roundabout) 150 years later.
You know that Thutmoses IV and the city Of Rameses can not be used for the same period.

---

So please don’t proceed to modify the original argument in dispute by shifting the issue exclusively to Pithom, although you had mentioned it in a previous post. Either acknowledge that your placement of Rameses II and the city Pi-Ramesse in relation to Raamses was incorrect or address the issue at hand.

quote:

---

I've done no such thing. I've simply stated that they didn't fit the Egytpian examples we know of. The seabed example doesn't look like those at all.

---

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you to be insinuating an Assyrian origin. As for your tenuous conclusion on the chariot wheels in debate, I have yet to see anything conclusive from you that should indicate that it isn’t definitively Egyptian. Your reasons are largely speculative, perceptive and overall inconclusive. Additionally, I have provided ample explanation for Egyptians in possession of foreign chariots captured repeatedly during conquests. And irrespective of this multitudinous array of possibilities, it does not lessen the pattern of evidence which is heavily indicative of an Egyptian army meeting a demise in a way that seems to substantiate the events as described in Exodus. Again, there are all three, 4, 6 and 8 respectively that have been discovered, contributing to the pattern in view.You also seem to ignore that Nassif Mohammed Hassan (director of Antiquities in Cairo at the time one of the wheels were presented to him) identified it as Egyptian 18th dynasty, despite the hollow assaults on the credibility of that identification by a few individuals in this thread.And a comment which you made earlier that I would like to comment on:

quote:

---

So, there could not have been rust coming from Egytpian Chariots, sunk 1446 BC. Only Thutmoses III and Ramses III mention (in documents) iron once, and both accounts concern gifts. There is no (or worthless amount of) iron production until the end of the 7th century. So, show me your sources, because these are highly suspect.

---

You also failed to note an iron dagger in the possession of Tutankhamun. I wouldn’t be surprised if you are missing other instances of Egypt in possession of Iron, although I wholeheartedly recognize that it was not the prominent metal at the time, nor employed as such.Another issue worth pointing out is the Exodus date at approximately 1446.BC. While this date is based on a very educated and meticulous deduction providing a very helpful timeframe, the actual placement of dating for the event can be compromised to some extent in either direction---taking into consideration problems with determining exact dating with certainty. And ,therefore, the proposed date for the Exodus should not be religiously held with specificity but rather circa 1446/47 BC.

Paulk,

quote:

---

Why are the arguments for the idea that Tuthmosis and Amenhotep titles at best based on questionable interpretations of evidence and at worst completely spurious ? Why is the contrary evidence ignored ? If there is adequate evidence to support it, why has it not been produced ?

---

First off, I would prefer if your question manifested a tad more interest in understanding, rather than a leading one.The hypothesis concerning the parallel identities of Pharaohs is just that, a hypothesis that has yet to be established with substantial evidence. No one has touted it as fact, so to treat it as though it were being proposed as one is simply irresponsible.As painful as it is to admit for all people who share a deep interest in Egyptian history and relating chronological matters, it would be less than honest not to admit that when it comes to more specific matters concerning ancient Egypt, and especially dating and chronology, everything must remain in the realm of educated speculation and at best, a tentatively supported theory with severe incongruities and usually conflicting evidence.With this said, it is terribly naive to talk of Ancient Egyptian dating with events and reigns of kings as though these things have been established beyond dispute and with certainty, even while the heavyweights are at constant dissonance with each other’s conjectures and often subscribe to totally different premises for dating. What the mass media and populace generally accept as historical fact, is in reality the prodigy of educated suppositions made by heavyweight Egyptologists who want desperately to know something for certain when it comes to Ancient Egypt.I will be the first to admit that this hypothesis being proposed contains severe flaws and apparent data contradictions that could easily render it an inviable one, but it is nevertheless based on some [apparent?] evidence. Because archdiscovery.com has an article in support of said scenario, I will quote it first:"The inscriptions found in temples and tombs indicate that the "Thutmoses" name is indicative of one of the offices of the pharaoh, just as was the "Amenhotep" name- and that each pharaoh was both a "Thutmoses" as well as an "Amenhotep" as he advanced in the royal line from co-regent to emperor. From our research, it appears that the crown prince received his "Thutmoses" title upon being appointed co-regent, and then became "Amenhotep" in addition to his earlier names, when he became emperor."--arkdiscovery.comThe source for this data is yet unknown. I will be emailing them soon to inquire as to the origin of this information being constructed.One for one of the principle reasons for questioning the identities of the Thutmosides and Amenhoteps is because Amun(-Ra) was the supreme Egyptian deity and, therefore, it contends that it doesn't seem logical that one Pharaoh would be named after the chief deity Amun (of which he was the earthly embodiment of) while another would be of Thoth. It then proceeds to line up the kings, and surprisingly the dating fits with the Exodus timeline and events almost perfectly, although this cannot automatically lend credence to the hypothesis or render it into factual status.Could it very well be that Thutmosis and Amenhotep are merely titles? Absolutely. What evidence might be suggestive of this? Take "Rameses" for example. It was a title used for numerous kings of Egypt as it means "son of Ra", but yet it seems to also be a personal name, hence Rameses I, II, III. Could it be that both were used as a name and a title? Perhaps. We may never know.There are also conflicting year issues pertaining to Thutmosis III that would seem to indicate him as the same person as Amenhotep II, and is part of the many complex estimations that have contributed to this new chronology. It would take me unreasonably long to provide exhaustive coverage for all the reasons why this new scenario has been proposed, but perhaps you might want to study the matter out for yourself so that you are acquainted with it.As inconclusive as this hypothesis is, it isn't more farfetched than many which are accepted with generally less hesitance. But because of the issue and implications attached to this one, it is prematurely dismissed with hypocrisy by many.Based on the evidence of the events of Ancient Egypt, and the circa placement of the Exodus, I have personally concluded that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was most likely Amenhotep III, even if the Wyatt scenario for the succession of kings proves to be wrong. If you want me to expound on why I believe this to be the case, I will try to supply you with some sort of synopsis.

jar

quote:

---

Then enlighten me.

---

I’ll be happy to. But only so I don’t have to watch you post any more rubbish.

quote:

---

If 2 million people packed up and left Egypt, how come no one noticed?

---

What basis do you have for this presupposition? Merely the fact that very little historical documentation has been made for the event? Face it, the ancient world seethed with propaganda and to pretend that there should be unadulterated records to support it is simply to ignore what we both know all too well about the literary characters of Ancient Empires and Egypt in particularthat they did everything in their power to either misrepresent, obliterate and erase everything that wasn’t favorable to them. Something that we have clearly documented.ALso, the Ipuwer papyrus could very well be an adulterated account of the event of the Exodus, as it was written in the 19th dynasty and describes conspicuously similar occurrences (namely plagues) as described in the narrative.

quote:

---

If the whole Egyptian Army and their Pharoah were killed, how come none of the other world powers noticed?

---

You again return to your leading questions in order to attach a fictitious dilemma to this side of the issue. For your benefit, allow me to point out basic events that occurred during the end of the 18th dynasty. A little extra research might have spared yourself the embarrassment of having to be flatly contradicted by historical records that fit corroboratively well with the Exodus story.It has generally been calculated that the Egyptian Empire reached a dazzling pinnacle under the reign of the illustrious king Amenhotep III, but what is so interestingly odd is how the Empire suddenly experiences such a drastic ebb under the reign of his infamous successor Akhenaten, and for no apparent reason. The well-known Amarna letters distinctly attest to something going terribly wrong with Egypt’s military might during the reign of Akhenaten. We find numerous pleas from the kings of vassal states in Canaan and Mesopotamia begging the king of Egypt to support these subject states with military aid against invasion, but with no answer. The minimal military help that Akhenaten did send near the end of his reign could have very well been all he was able to muster, considering a scenario where the entire army of Egypt perishes. Was Akhenaten simply preoccupied with singing praises to the Aten, or was he somehow unable to salvage his crumbling empire from invasion?

quote:

---

How come there is no evidence of Hebrews even being in Egypt before around the 6th Century?

---

Not only does Manetho himself attest to an Israelite Exodus from Egypt (although his version of events is extremely mutilated in many of its historical aspects), but strong evidence for an asiatic/Hebrew settlement in Tel-el Daba, the biblical land of Raamses or Goshen, has been recently uncovered, your myopic assertions notwithstanding.The evidence of an Asiatic presence in Egypt is overwhelming, albeit finding direct evidence to this presence as being directly Hebrew has been somewhat difficult. We know that the Israelites were already in Canaan by the time of Merneptah, however, as he alludes to in a stele.I strongly recommend doing yourself a huge favor by just honestly admitting that you need to investigate this subject further instead of masquerading in here like you actually know what you’re talking about. It’s the only way if you expect to have a competent dialogue on any issue, and this one in particular. Stating an unlearned opinion is not only worthless to the discussion but injurious to the informative wellbeing of others.)

crashfrog,Thank you for the recommendation with regard to posting.P.S. Who's post, and which specifically, are you commenting on? Thanks

Eta,If you think you’re accomplishing something by adding hyperbole to your already meaningless content, you’re pretty misguided. I seriously doubt you’ve read anything here in justifiable measure before cluttering this thread with sophomoric rubbish.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-28-2004 12:34 AM

quote:

---

According to my reading Amenhotep III's greatness was in building monuments - not conquest. He mainly kept the armies home in Egypt. The ebb in Egypt's military started there. Akenaten had internal problems in his conflict with the priests of Amun and moving the capital to Amarna.

---

And demonstrates that Egypt was enjoying a militarily and economically stable Empire. We have historical correspondence letters which show a great deal of diplomacy between Egypt and her foreign possessions.There was also a campaign made against a rebelious Nubia during Amenhotep's reign.I am very aware of the strife between Akhenaten and the priests of Amun, but this does not logically justify zero military action for crumbling vassal kingdoms if an army WAS present in Egypt.If Akhenaten was brilliant enough to save his throne from the encroaching priests of Amun, it would only make sense to save your Empire via militlary action as well, which he conspicuously did not.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-28-2004 08:20 AM

The "petty squabble" is a product of your imagination alone. Most sources agree that Egypt was seriously losing its international prestige under Akhenaten and that the empire was experiencing a severe decline both militarily and economically. We also have records of the High Priest alluding to the egregious situation in the Empire.It's obvious that you're simply trying to minimize a piece of history [that we know all too well] to fit your incredulity.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-28-2004 09:09 AMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-28-2004 09:11 AM

quote:

---

You basically defended Lysimachus' point that we shouldn't be looking for Raamses, because if it was build during the reign of Ramses II, then Pi would have been used (might have been used, we don't know).

---

I've never stated that we "shouldn't be looking for Raamses", that is your invention. My point is that even if the proposed site for "Pi-Ramesse" was the same location for the city of Ramses that the Isralites constructed, it doesn't mean that Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus for clearly stated reasons.Furthermore, "Pi" WOULD have been used if it was referring to that specific time of the city, especially considering "Pi" in Pithom, why not Raamses? The significance of this prefix I have already established,...Why must I constantly reiterate for you? I would be greatly obliged if you would read carefully the content of my posts the first time, as it would make this dialogue much easier for the both of us.

quote:

---

There are no two candidtates

---

Incorrect. While the most popularly accepted location is that of Tell el-Maskhuta, there is another location that has also been suggested as the location for Pithom, known as Tell er-Retabah. The point is, both have shown to predate RamesesII. HE merely rebuilt or put his name on numerous locations and monuments throughout Egypt.

quote:

---

Now, even if Pithom was older (which hasn't been shown yet), you must at least confirm that Pithom was used as a storage city when Ramses build it.

---

Considering that the Pharaoh known as Rameses II was not the king of the Exodus, I fail to see the burden. Nevertheless, archaelogical excavation at Tell el-Maskhutta (the most generally accepted location for Pithom) has yielded possible "grain storage facilities".

quote:

---

The Qantir site as build by Ramses II also fits this bill perfectly. Before Ramses, Qantir Pi-Ramesse was not used as a storage facility.
I'm using the bible to prove a point here.....

---

I'm not acutely familiar with all of the data that would suggest exactly what periods these locations were used specifically for storage. What we do know is that these places predate Rameses II, and the fact that he used these general locations for his new building projects does not ratify his being Pharaoh of the Exodus for that reason. Also consider that "Rameses" was also used as a title for virtually all the kings of Egypt, so something other than "Rameses" would be required to make a proper nexus between the location and Rameses II.Rameses II not only doesn't fit the dating timeline at all, but Merneptah's stele indicates that Israel was already occupying Canaan, totally disqualifying Rameses II as Pharaoh of the oppression.

quote:

---

One final time about the wheel:
Conclusion so far:
Lysimachus claims; they have not been disclaimed by egyptologists as being something else but Egyptian. So, they are Egyptian and have 4-6-8 spokes, just like in the period of Thutmosis III. Uses pictures of Thutmosis IV to back this up.
Hydarnes claims; The Egyptians might have used foreign chariots. Chariots of the Egyptians look like chariots from neighboring people.

​

Look guys, I can't argue against someone who claims they're all Egyptian and someone who claims they might be foreign or looked foreign. If foreign wheels looked like Egyptian ones, then these also would have slim rims and spokes.
My claim is "The Egyptians wheels used slim rims and spokes. The only identifiable wheel has neither. Pictures of Egyptian wheels have not produced any wheel which looks like the one found on the seabed. (WITHOUT CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE ASSYRIAN!!), the Assyrians wheels of a later time used much thicker rims and spokes, resembling the wheel better that the Egyptian wheels we have found/seen pictures of so far. But these are of a period, hundred of years later.
During the 17th century BC, the Myceneans used 4 spoked wheels f.i. Why can't it be theirs?

---

Whether or not the specific origin for these chariots was from Egypt or not is immaterial, the point is, these chariots were employed by Egypt during the 18th dynasty.

quote:

---

"The Egyptians wheels used slim rims and spokes. The only identifiable wheel has neither. Pictures of Egyptian wheels have not produced any wheel which looks like the one found on the seabed. (WITHOUT CLAIMING THAT THEY ARE ASSYRIAN!!), the Assyrians wheels of a later time used much thicker rims and spokes, resembling the wheel better that the Egyptian wheels we have found/seen pictures of so far. But these are of a period, hundred of years later.

---

I disagree with your arbitrary identification of the wheel on the seabed. I have seen a substantial number of Egyptian murals, and one in particular, that match visually well with the description found in Aqaba. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find an adequate picture on the net, I will try to obtain one for you.I will try to say more this evening. I don't want to be late for work.

quote:

---

I just can't believe people have gone to 400+ posts on something that does not exist.

---

And it incenses me to no end how you keep ranting about something you know nothing about.

quote:

---

The fact that this has not been the biggest story on the planet (perhaps with the Iraq war) for 2 or 3 years tells anyone with common sense that it is a fraud.

---

That's a bald-faced assumption.

quote:

---

This would be about the biggest find in archeological history yet somehow nobody has bothered to bring these chariots to the surface.

---

Saudi law strictly prohibits any coral covered artifact from being removed.The question to be asked is: Why haven't more archaelogists been curious enough to actually go observe and evaluate for themselves what's at the bottom of Aqaba. No, instead everybody sits on their rear wondering why this isn't making constant headlines. Because obviously nobody has the nerve to get the ball rolling.In case you might have missed this, provided earlier by Lysimachus:Page not found - WNDI guess things are getting noticed by the film producers.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 07-28-2004 08:18 PM

quote:

---

But it would be nice, from my spectator point of view, if you could provide more sources in your posts. You're making a lot of claims that contradict others, but it's not yet clear why I should take your word over anybody else's. Some sources would help with that.

---

And is completely understandable. Taking much of the information as granted knowledge should more or less account for why I haven't supplied sources in greater abundance. The lack of on-hand sources for the plethora of information that I'm constantly encountering is another reason for the absence of direct links.If there is anything you would like a source for from what you have read, please let me know and I will be happy to provide you with them as best I can.In any event, thank you for your assistance and help.

It doesn't mean a hoot. I only decided to re-mention it because apparently Eta believes that some sort of authority is associated with that ilk of information.

quote:

---

That's you will never go broke underestimating the stupidity of the public?

---

Nice, I like it.