"JTEM" <jtem01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:9596a0c8-8b40-45fc-aa3a-c36fc4a1dc99@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> "Lars Wilson" <siaxa...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> I disagree and you're not being specific.
>
> Let's see... you've literally flooded alt.history.ancient-egypt
> with your crap -- a group which normally gets a half dozen
> posting OR LESS a month, and you've posted more than
> 20!
>
> At this point, given your rank dishonesty, I don't even
> fact check you any more. There's no point in checking
> into the things i don't know about or am not sure of,
> because everything I am aware of -- like Kathleen
> Kenyon's finding -- you so routinely misrepresent.
>
It is IMPOSSIBLE to misrepresent something if you
quote your reference. The reader is then in a position
to read what they want into the reference or post there
I've misrepresented it. You haven't. You just SAY
that is what is so but show no proof. Therefore, you can't
be believed. Anybody can make claims but can they
sup****t them? Posting a quote is how we substantiate
our claim. When somone like you doesn't have adequate
ability or character to dismiss that reference, they
claim "misrepresentation" with no detail. So they are
ignored, academically, as they should be.
> Oh. That's a fancy word for "Lie." You lie about Kathleen
> Kenyon. You always have. As far as I know, you have
> never posted a single article where you mention Kathleen
> Kenyon where you avoid lying about her and her findings.
>
I post her actual quote from her book. So people can read
for themselves. If it is a misrepresentation you should
demonstrate that, but you do not. Nor do you say in what
way I misrepresent her. So you are not to be believed. This
is the best you can do, simply make unsubtantiated claims.
Nothing I can do about that, but people can read for themselves.
> Another very recent example of your rank dishonesty was
> when you regurgitated some very old (and long refuted)
> crap on Amenhotep III.
>
It is NOT refuted and never can be. And again, you are not
being specific. Archaeologists argue among themselves over
the details, how it is that my opinion is completely wrong and
you show no specific rebuttal? So that's why nobody pays
attention to you. You're just anti whatever you don't like
my position is, and lacking a direct rebuttal, you claim you
made that rebuttal in the past when it never happened. But that's
the BEST you can do since you have no position to defeat
my position. It's as simple as that. You're just desperate that's
all.
So thanks for indirectly confirming my suprior opinion.
Lars Wilson
|
