 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Archaeology Forum » A word about evidence... |
|
Page 1 of 5 Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| JTEM... |
 Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:37 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
I'm going to take a moment here to explain one of
my issues with the bible crowd, and I will try my
best to do it with a little maturity and not a lot of
insults.
Anyhow, this recent example typifies the issue with
evidence, and how many (if not "most") of the people
here don't even know what is or is not relevant to a
question...
First, Larry Swain aka "Weland" said:
:It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.
To which I responded by point out...
: :Speaking of counting issues: There are seven (7) signs
: :which make up the word, plus a literal mark and
: :determinatives, not your six (6).
Now here's the problem:
:> So transliterate it for us young JStupid.
Why? Because if I don't then one of the signs will vanish,
leaving only your six?
Why not challenge me to balance a glass a water on my
head, or eat a banana in one bite? Either one would be
just as relevant to the point under discussion, just as
telling.
[quote]Show us what image you are transliterating from and
what exactly you are transliterating.
[/quote]
Now this makes slightly more sense, so long as you're
going to claim that there's more than one version of the
hieroglyphs.
Only, if there was more than one version of the text,
wouldn't that be evidence for forgery?
Oddly, there are two. One is so fragmentary that you
could barely squeeze out a couple of door stops from
the pieces (even more fragmentary then the "Mesha
Stele"), and the other is some poor quality scratches
on the back of an older stele.
Is that what Larry means? He wants to know which of
the two steles I'm referring to?
Well, the "intact" one.
But in case that's not what he means, take your pick:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=%22victory%20stele%22%20merneptah&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
I just randomly clicked on a number of them, and not
one depicted less than 7 signs plus a literal mark and
determinatives.
Does Larry Swain aka Weland not have internet access?
Is that it? He was not capable of performing a rudimentary
Google search on his own?
Even stranger: What if I was like Larry and couldn't
perform rudimentary searches either? Would that be
"Proof" that one of the signs vanished, leaving only his
six?
Sorry, but even what at it's face might be mistaken for
a reasonable challenge is itself another irrelevant
demand. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 12:37 pm, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I'm going to take a moment here to
[/quote]
wank to George W. Bush, after I saw him on the morning paper today, on
a talking tour.
Wear your pilot suit, George.
After his "mission accomplished" picture came out I broke my two
wrists, but it's all healed now so I am a 'beatnik' again.
[quote]I will try my
best to do it with a little maturity and not a lot of
insults.
[/quote]
But I will probably fail because of inborn felonious levels of
stupidity. What am I to do when I run out of ideas, shut up? That
won't do. On the other hand I can repeat the same lame insults until
my keyboard runs out of ink.
[quote]
Anyhow, this recent example typifies the issue with
evidence,
[/quote]
Where is that you guys go get it? It beats me. I'd like to give
some evidence of my own some time, but I am always fresh out. Dang!
That's why I have to fill the void with lowly invective. See above.
[quote]and how many (if not "most") of the people
here
[/quote]
seem to find evidence so easily. How is that possible? They post
scholarly references with the name of the author, the year of
publication, the book or paper title, and even the page and the
publisher. That's so neat. I wish I could give a reference like
that myself, but where do I start?
I am really familiar with Mein Kampf, but I can't find any good bible
stuff there. Help me.
[quote]
First, Larry Swain
[/quote]
should stop swamping me with logic, it gives me a head buzz you
wouldn't believe, at least do it gently Larry.
[quote]
Now here's the problem:
[/quote]
I was kicked out of every school my parents put me into for stealing
lunch money or for jerking off in class. I have lost a couple of
good jobs for the jerking off thingy too. I should say it's my
religion so they would just leave me be.
[quote]Why not challenge me
[/quote]
to a wanking contest instead of all that bible stuff you guys know so
well? I'd give you a run for your money there. Also can you
[quote]eat a banana in one bite?
[/quote]
That I can do too. I got a lot of practice in prison, where I got my
shit pushed at least three times a day, as well as several whole
bananas in the pie hole...
[quote]Either one would be
[/quote]
harsh on any of your bookworm asses but not for mine. I understand
my wife's Bertha's needs very well because I've been there.
[quote]
Oddly, there are two
[/quote]
things I miss about prison. The banana-in-the-face moments, and the
fudge-packing moments; not separate moments either, necessarily.
[quote]One is so
[/quote]
asphyxiatingly enjoyable, and the other feels so good deep inside, I
just can't decide which one is better. This big mother called
Bubba
[quote]could barely squeeze
[/quote]
it in me, and I am anything but tight. Ah! Bubba, those were the
days.
Anyway back to the evidence thingy. Can I just type "Evidence" in
Google and get it?
[quote]
Is that what Larry means?
But in case that's not what he means, take your pick:
[/quote]
I have Spideman comics, old issues of Playgirl, and even the Babble
for Dummies.
So where is the evidence?
[quote]
I just randomly
[/quote]
opened a page of a Playgirl and it's got Burt Reynolds naked. Bubba
is so much bigger, by the way. Any evidence there?
[quote]
Does Larry Swain accept
[/quote]
a picture of Burt Reynolds butt naked as evidence?
[quote]He was not capable of performing a rudimentary
[/quote]
rim job on Burt if he tried. I betcha.
[quote]
Even stranger: What if I was like Larry and couldn't
perform rudimentary
[/quote]
banana throating? I betcha the damned bookworm can't.
[quote]Would that be "Proof" that
[/quote]
that all that evidence shit ain't no good to start with? How does
that help you get some cred as prison gay when you get 10 long ones,
I'd like to know.
[quote]one of the signs
[/quote]
is that Larry probably has hairless palms. No good.
[quote]
Sorry, but even
[/quote]
if it hurt like bitching for the first five years, no one here can
say he can take all of Bubba in the pooper and whistle at the same
time, like I can.
Kudos to me.
JTEM |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LloydB... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 7:57 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 11:37 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]I'm going to take a moment here to explain one of
my issues with the bible crowd, and I will try my
best to do it with a little maturity and not a lot of
insults.
Anyhow, this recent example typifies the issue with
evidence, and how many (if not "most") of the people
here don't even know what is or is not relevant to a
question...
First, Larry Swain aka "Weland" said:
:It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.
To which I responded by point out...
: :Speaking of counting issues: There are seven (7) signs
: :which make up the word, plus a literal mark and
: :determinatives, not your six (6).
Now here's the problem:
:> So transliterate it for us young JStupid.
Why? Because if I don't then one of the signs will vanish,
leaving only your six?
Why not challenge me to balance a glass a water on my
head, or eat a banana in one bite? Either one would be
just as relevant to the point under discussion, just as
telling.
Show us what image you are transliterating from and
what exactly you are transliterating.
Now this makes slightly more sense, so long as you're
going to claim that there's more than one version of the
hieroglyphs.
Only, if there was more than one version of the text,
wouldn't that be evidence for forgery?
Oddly, there are two. One is so fragmentary that you
could barely squeeze out a couple of door stops from
the pieces (even more fragmentary then the "Mesha
Stele"), and the other is some poor quality scratches
on the back of an older stele.
Is that what Larry means? He wants to know which of
the two steles I'm referring to?
Well, the "intact" one.
But in case that's not what he means, take your pick:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=%22victory%20stele%22%20merne....
I just randomly clicked on a number of them, and not
one depicted less than 7 signs plus a literal mark and
determinatives.
Does Larry Swain aka Weland not have internet access?
Is that it? He was not capable of performing a rudimentary
Google search on his own?
Even stranger: What if I was like Larry and couldn't
perform rudimentary searches either? Would that be
"Proof" that one of the signs vanished, leaving only his
six?
Sorry, but even what at it's face might be mistaken for
a reasonable challenge is itself another irrelevant
demand.
[/quote]
If this entire topic area would "vanish" and "disappear" or
otherwise "resolve itself into a dew" in places other than
sci.archaeology, that would be a considerable blessing.
From any *archaeological* standpoint, the bickering over
spelling and meanings (especially as applied to religious
'literature' and what it should or shouldn't tell us) is an intrusion
fromothert disciplines, at best. (But clearly it is much more
"here's my favorite axe to grind" in most cases.) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Jack Teehan... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 8:28 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LloydB <bogart.l... at (no spam) uwlax.edu> wrote:
[quote]If this entire topic area would "vanish" and "disappear" or
otherwise "resolve itself into a dew" in places other than
sci.archaeology, that would be a considerable blessing.
From any *archaeological* standpoint, the bickering over
spelling and meanings (especially as applied to religious
'literature' and what it
[/quote]
Ironically enough, the issue raised wasn't about spelling &
meanings, it was concerning the inability of some (most?)
here to discern a legitimate point (or test) from something
that is entirely irrelevant.
Though the illustration just happens to be a word dispute
with religious implications, that should in no way be read
as indicating that the problem is limited to word disputes,
or to matters pertaining to religion.
Is your face red now, or what? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| LloydB... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 9:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 1:28 pm, Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti... at (no spam) gmail.com>
wrote:
[quote] LloydB <bogart.l... at (no spam) uwlax.edu> wrote:
If this entire topic area would "vanish" and "disappear" or
otherwise "resolve itself into a dew" in places other than
sci.archaeology, that would be a considerable blessing.
From any *archaeological* standpoint, the bickering over
spelling and meanings (especially as applied to religious
'literature' and what it
Ironically enough, the issue raised wasn't about spelling &
meanings, it was concerning the inability of some (most?)
here to discern a legitimate point (or test) from something
that is entirely irrelevant.
Though the illustration just happens to be a word dispute
with religious implications, that should in no way be read
as indicating that the problem is limited to word disputes,
or to matters pertaining to religion.
Is your face red now, or what?
[/quote]
No, my face isn't red. Folks who grasp at whatever
ambiguities are available to support an idiosyncratic
position... are usually kooks. We merely seem to
attract more religious bozo kooks on sci.arch. Such
thinking is (generally) atypical of rational scholars.
(Note the term "especially" in my posting.)
I'll leave others to fill in the blanks (insert disorder here).
And no, I'm ever-so-certain "the problem" is widespread.
Bottom line: the Thread Topic isn't archaeology. Go away. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 10:58 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 3:50 pm, LloydB <bogart.l... at (no spam) uwlax.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 1:28 pm, Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
LloydB <bogart.l... at (no spam) uwlax.edu> wrote:
If this entire topic area would "vanish" and "disappear" or
otherwise "resolve itself into a dew" in places other than
sci.archaeology, that would be a considerable blessing.
From any *archaeological* standpoint, the bickering over
spelling and meanings (especially as applied to religious
'literature' and what it
Ironically enough, the issue raised wasn't about spelling &
meanings, it was concerning the inability of some (most?)
here to discern a legitimate point (or test) from something
that is entirely irrelevant.
Though the illustration just happens to be a word dispute
with religious implications, that should in no way be read
as indicating that the problem is limited to word disputes,
or to matters pertaining to religion.
Is your face red now, or what?
No, my face isn't red. Folks who grasp at whatever
ambiguities are available to support an idiosyncratic
position... are usually kooks. We merely seem to
attract more religious bozo kooks on sci.arch. Such
thinking is (generally) atypical of rational scholars.
(Note the term "especially" in my posting.)
I'll leave others to fill in the blanks (insert disorder here).
And no, I'm ever-so-certain "the problem" is widespread.
Bottom line: the Thread Topic isn't archaeology. Go away.
[/quote]
Line beneath the bottom line: It's a JTEM thread: (a) ignore, (b)
use as punching bag.
But do not, for fuck's sake, take it seriously or notice otherwise,
Dig on. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tom McDonald... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 27, 3:58 pm, Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 27, 3:50 pm, LloydB <bogart.l... at (no spam) uwlax.edu> wrote:
On Oct 27, 1:28 pm, Jack Teehan <deerfieldproducti... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:
LloydB <bogart.l... at (no spam) uwlax.edu> wrote:
If this entire topic area would "vanish" and "disappear" or
otherwise "resolve itself into a dew" in places other than
sci.archaeology, that would be a considerable blessing.
From any *archaeological* standpoint, the bickering over
spelling and meanings (especially as applied to religious
'literature' and what it
Ironically enough, the issue raised wasn't about spelling &
meanings, it was concerning the inability of some (most?)
here to discern a legitimate point (or test) from something
that is entirely irrelevant.
Though the illustration just happens to be a word dispute
with religious implications, that should in no way be read
as indicating that the problem is limited to word disputes,
or to matters pertaining to religion.
Is your face red now, or what?
No, my face isn't red. Folks who grasp at whatever
ambiguities are available to support an idiosyncratic
position... are usually kooks. We merely seem to
attract more religious bozo kooks on sci.arch. Such
thinking is (generally) atypical of rational scholars.
(Note the term "especially" in my posting.)
I'll leave others to fill in the blanks (insert disorder here).
And no, I'm ever-so-certain "the problem" is widespread.
Bottom line: the Thread Topic isn't archaeology. Go away.
Line beneath the bottom line: It's a JTEM thread: (a) ignore, (b)
use as punching bag.
But do not, for fuck's sake, take it seriously or notice otherwise,
Dig on.
[/quote]
Still, the odd removal of sci.archaeology from this sort of thread
would not go a miss. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Peter Alaca... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 12:58 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Jack Teehan <deerfieldproductions at (no spam) gmail.com> 27/10/2009 19:28 wrote:
[quote]LloydB <bogart.l... at (no spam) uwlax.edu> wrote:
If this entire topic area would "vanish" and "disappear" or
otherwise "resolve itself into a dew" in places other than
sci.archaeology, that would be a considerable blessing.
From any *archaeological* standpoint, the bickering over
spelling and meanings (especially as applied to religious
'literature' and what it
Ironically enough, the issue raised wasn't about spelling &
meanings, it was concerning the inability of some (most?)
here to discern a legitimate point (or test) from something
that is entirely irrelevant.
Though the illustration just happens to be a word dispute
with religious implications, that should in no way be read
as indicating that the problem is limited to word disputes,
or to matters pertaining to religion.
Is your face red now, or what?
[/quote]
Is this archaeology now? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Whiskers... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 3:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-27, JTEM <jtem01 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]
I'm going to take a moment here to explain one of
my issues with the bible crowd, and I will try my
best to do it with a little maturity and not a lot of
insults.
Anyhow, this recent example typifies the issue with
evidence, and how many (if not "most") of the people
here don't even know what is or is not relevant to a
question...
First, Larry Swain aka "Weland" said:
:It can be read as "ysra3r" because that is what it says.
To which I responded by point out...
: :Speaking of counting issues: There are seven (7) signs
: :which make up the word, plus a literal mark and
: :determinatives, not your six (6).
Now here's the problem:
:> So transliterate it for us young JStupid.
Why? Because if I don't then one of the signs will vanish,
leaving only your six?
[/quote]
No; because we await with bated breath your revelation of which seven
'signs' you are talking about and what each of them 'means'. (I don't know
about anyone else, but I'm particularly interested to learn which 'sign'
is the 'literal mark' and what exactly the purpose or meaning of it is).
[quote]Why not challenge me to balance a glass a water on my
head, or eat a banana in one bite? Either one would be
just as relevant to the point under discussion, just as
telling.
[/quote]
Don't attempt to explain that. Please, don't.
[quote]Show us what image you are transliterating from and
what exactly you are transliterating.
Now this makes slightly more sense, so long as you're
going to claim that there's more than one version of the
hieroglyphs.
[/quote]
Umm, actually, there is only one "Merneptah victory stele", but there are
a few images of it on line. Some are photographs of the thing itself, and
some are photographs of drawings of the inscription, and some are
re-writes using 'standardised' characters embedded in digital text.
There are two problems with photos of the actual monument; it's ten feet
tall, and it's black. I haven't found any photos of the whole thing that
are legible. A skilled photographer with good kit and plenty of time and
control over the lighting, could get a very good image of it; but getting
a large enough digital version onto a web or FTP server, would be awkward -
and many people would balk at downloading the very large file required.
Which is probably why I haven't found one.
However, here is a good image of the part where the word 'Israel' occurs
(or doesn't, depending on one's preference)
<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Israel_segment.jpg>.
[quote]Only, if there was more than one version of the text,
wouldn't that be evidence for forgery?
[/quote]
Or of innocent mistake, or something.
This appears to be a photo of a drawing of the inscription; it's
remarkably clear, although the fine details are lost in the pixels
<http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/IsraelSteleMerenptah.htm>. There's
another even clearer drawing here
<http://www.katapi.org.uk/BAndS/IsraelSteleMerenptah.htm>.
I'll even tell you that the part that might or might not mention Israel,
is in the the next-to-bottom line.
[quote]Oddly, there are two. One is so fragmentary that you
could barely squeeze out a couple of door stops from
the pieces (even more fragmentary then the "Mesha
Stele"), and the other is some poor quality scratches
on the back of an older stele.
Is that what Larry means? He wants to know which of
the two steles I'm referring to?
Well, the "intact" one.
[/quote]
Not the copy in the Harvard Semitic Museum then. Are you going to reveal
which image you're using?
[quote]But in case that's not what he means, take your pick:
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=%22victory%20stele%22%20merneptah&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wi
I just randomly clicked on a number of them, and not
one depicted less than 7 signs plus a literal mark and
determinatives.
Does Larry Swain aka Weland not have internet access?
Is that it? He was not capable of performing a rudimentary
Google search on his own?
[/quote]
You're the one who hasn't been offering anything to support your claims.
[quote]Even stranger: What if I was like Larry and couldn't
perform rudimentary searches either? Would that be
"Proof" that one of the signs vanished, leaving only his
six?
[/quote]
Strange indeed. Please don't try to explain that either.
[quote]Sorry, but even what at it's face might be mistaken for
a reasonable challenge is itself another irrelevant
demand.
[/quote]
Either the inscription says one thing, or it says another thing. Why
don't you back up your own opinion?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:23 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
LloydB <bogart.l... at (no spam) uwlax.edu> wrote:
[quote]Bottom line: the Thread Topic isn't
[/quote]
You've got to learn to argue and discuss before you can
argue & discuss archaeology. It seems you feel your
jerking knee is special, that your emotion-ladened reaction
is over & above the next guys. You're wrong about that. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Tue Oct 27, 2009 6:53 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
[quote]No; because we await with bated breath your revelation
of which seven 'signs' you are talking about
[/quote]
I'm flabbergasted. Seriously. Are you really not capable
of counting that high?
Dude, Google "Merneptah Stele." You'll find images. I
promise. Next, remove those mittens. This much alone
should get you past "Four." Next, start counting.
[quote] (I don't know about anyone else, but I'm particularly
interested to learn which 'sign' is the 'literal mark'
[/quote]
It's the one right underneath the mouth sign that morons
claim should be read as an 'L'.
That would be the second mouth sign. You are welcome.
[quote]and what exactly the purpose or meaning of it is).
[/quote]
Again, nothing more than a rudimentary Google search....
http://www.helium.com/items/1265562-ancient-egyptian-hieroglyphs
http://www.dotellall.com/article/egyptian-hieroglyphs.html
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-egyptian-hieroglyphics.html
This may not be basic stuff, but it is basic stuff FOR THE
SUBJECT. The fact that you had to ask is a pretty strong
indication that you are *Way* over your head here, and
should probably stick to things you know about.
[quote]Why not challenge me to balance a glass a water on my
head, or eat a banana in one bite? Either one would be
just as relevant to the point under discussion, just as
telling.
Don't attempt to explain that. Please, don't.
[/quote]
It was self explanatory.
[quote]Show us what image you are transliterating from and
what exactly you are transliterating.
Now this makes slightly more sense, so long as you're
going to claim that there's more than one version of the
hieroglyphs.
Umm, actually, there is only one "Merneptah victory stele",
[/quote]
So you're agreeing with me; it was a ridicules request.
[quote]but there are a few images of it on line.
[/quote]
The very first page returned by Google Images contained 11
images of it, plus two details from the stele (including an
image taken of just the word in question) as well as an image
of the man who found it.
Again, that was the very first page.
I'm just going to end this here, right where you ended my
patience. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
[quote]I count more than a dozen 'signs' in the part of the
inscription that is usually identified as referring to
Israel.
[/quote]
The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
(they're not though), count as one...
....though if you wanted to call it "two" I guess that,
technically, there's no issue with that....
...as do the two
little lines underneath what looks like a little transistor.
The final sign making the word is the second mouth
sign. The mouth sign has a literal mark beneath it,
and it is in turn followed by determinatives.
[quote]Dude, Google "Merneptah Stele." You'll find images. I
promise. Next, remove those mittens. This much alone
should get you past "Four." Next, start counting.
You didn't notice the links in my article?
[/quote]
So it just never occurred to you to search for images using
the "images" option? This is something you really need
pointed out to you?
[quote] (I don't know about anyone else, but I'm particularly
interested to learn which 'sign' is the 'literal mark'
It's the one right underneath the mouth sign that morons
claim should be read as an 'L'.
Has anyone ever said there is anything on the stele that
should be read as an L?
[/quote]
If you look /real/ close I'm sure you'll see that I just answered
that question.
[quote]Again, nothing more than a rudimentary Google search....
So you don't know what that mark means.
[/quote]
He, jackass, I just furnished you with three URLs which each
offering an explanation. Apparently your observational skills
are as poor as your grasp of history.
[quote]http://www.helium.com/items/1265562-ancient-egyptian-hieroglyphs
There are 11 articles on this title. You are reading the article
ranked and rated #6 by Helium's members.
[/quote]
You might try starting with THE ONE I provided a URL to.
Good luck with that.
[---snip a whole lot of irrelevant nonsense---]
So what you're saying is that you won't accept the answer
because you don't like the person giving it.
Wow, that's retarded.
[quote]http://www.dotellall.com/article/egyptian-hieroglyphs.html
How did an anonymous article about hieroglyphics end up
on what seems to be a web site intended for people to ask
and answer questions about local facilities in particular
areas of the USA?
[/quote]
What possible relevance could that have?
It provides you with the answer that you were too retarded to
find on your own. Enjoy.
[quote]Whoever wrote this, they offer an explanation for your 'literal mark':
[/quote]
Duh. The first one did as well, along with the third one. This isn't
mere coincidence, the three URLs to pages answering the same
question....
[quote]So are you saying that
[/quote]
At this point all I'm doing is laughing at you.
[quote]http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-egyptian-hieroglyphics.html
Not a bad article, mostly; written by
[/quote]
Given your performance thus far, that's a pretty strong
condemnation...
[quote]Umm, actually, there is only one "Merneptah victory stele",
So you're agreeing with me; it was a ridicules request.
No,
[/quote]
So you lack reading comprehension.
[quote]I gave you links to excellent images of the inscription.
That's trivially easy.
[/quote]
You just said that there are few images of it online.
[quote] /Reading/ is the tricky bit.
[/quote]
And, for some people, counting.
[quote]For 'ended my patience' I'll read
[/quote]
...whatever
your jerking knee tells you.
Enjoy. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JTEM... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 5:54 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Tiglath <te... at (no spam) tiglath.net> wrote:
[quote]wank to
[/quote]
As insightful as ever. On the bright side, every
moment you spend replying to me is another
moment you didn't spend exposing yourself on
crowded subway trains...
[quote]Wear your pilot suit, George.
[/quote]
You don't usually stick this close to a topic. Did
something happen? Are you ill?
[quote]But I will probably fail because of inborn felonious
levels of stupidity.
[/quote]
Certain things can just be taken for granted, if you
know what I mean.
[quote]Where is that you guys go get it? It beats me.
[/quote]
Very much like your parents, I suspect.
[quote]They post scholarly references with the name of the
author, the
[/quote]
Real people have names. Real references not only exist,
but actually support the claims being made. Clearly you
don't understand.
[quote]I am really familiar with Mein Kampf,
[/quote]
That'll look good on a resume...
[quote]should stop swamping me with logic,
[/quote]
Aaaaaaaaand.... Scene! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Whiskers... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 6:36 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On 2009-10-28, JTEM <jtem01 at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Whiskers <catwheezel at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
No; because we await with bated breath your revelation
of which seven 'signs' you are talking about
I'm flabbergasted. Seriously. Are you really not capable
of counting that high?
[/quote]
I count more than a dozen 'signs' in the part of the inscription that is
usually identified as referring to Israel. Could by sixteen; depends how
you define 'sign'.
[quote]Dude, Google "Merneptah Stele." You'll find images. I
promise. Next, remove those mittens. This much alone
should get you past "Four." Next, start counting.
[/quote]
You didn't notice the links in my article? The ones you silently edited
out of your response?
[quote]Â (I don't know about anyone else, but I'm particularly
interested to learn which 'sign' is the 'literal mark'
It's the one right underneath the mouth sign that morons
claim should be read as an 'L'.
[/quote]
Has anyone ever said there is anything on the stele that should be read as
an L?
[quote]That would be the second mouth sign. You are welcome.
and what exactly the purpose or meaning of it is).
Again, nothing more than a rudimentary Google search....
[/quote]
So you don't know what that mark means.
[quote]http://www.helium.com/items/1265562-ancient-egyptian-hieroglyphs
[/quote]
There are 11 articles on this title. You are reading the article ranked
and rated #6 by Helium's members.
Only ranked 6/11 by Helium's members? Who are these members?
Egyptologists? What about the author of the article:
Learn more about this author, Ashley.
About me - Ashley
Articles
Writer Biography
About me
Hello my name is Ashley and I enjoy reading and writing. I have written
short stories, book ideas, and short screenplays, ect for fun. I have
joined helium to share my writing with others.
Briefly me
My childhood ambition ...
Was to be a veterinarian
My favorite memory ...
My childhood
What I am reading/watching/listening to ...
Books: "The clan of the cave bear" by Jean M. Auel, "Lord of the rings"
by J.R.R. Tolkien..Watching: Malcolm in the middle, Frasier, and Curb
your enthusiam
My first job ...
Cashier
My inspiration ...
My mom
So not enough of an Egyptologist or linguist to mention either in her (?)
'profile'.
[quote]http://www.dotellall.com/article/egyptian-hieroglyphs.html
[/quote]
How did an anonymous article about hieroglyphics end up on what seems to be
a web site intended for people to ask and answer questions about local
facilities in particular areas of the USA?
<shrug>
Whoever wrote this, they offer an explanation for your 'literal mark':
The Egyptians solved this problem by adding a vertical line next to any
symbol that was meant to be a logogram. A vertical line is an example
of a determinative, something Egyptians used to clarify what meaning
they intended a word to have.
So are you saying that the vertical line below the 'mouth' symbol
indicates that it means literally "mouth"? What is your reading of the
rest of that line in the inscription if it has the word "mouth" in the
middle of it?
[quote]http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-egyptian-hieroglyphics.html
[/quote]
Not a bad article, mostly; written by
Rutuja Jathar
MA with Political Science
Interests and Hobbies:
I love reading, writing, trekking, listening to all kinds of music...
so not a self-confessed Egyptologist or linguist.
[quote]This may not be basic stuff, but it is basic stuff FOR THE
SUBJECT. The fact that you had to ask is a pretty strong
indication that you are *Way* over your head here, and
should probably stick to things you know about.
[/quote]
Go on then, tell us what your expert reading of the inscription is.
[quote]Why not challenge me to balance a glass a water on my
head, or eat a banana in one bite? Either one would be
just as relevant to the point under discussion, just as
telling.
Don't attempt to explain that. Â Please, don't.
It was self explanatory.
[/quote]
I was rather afraid it might be.
[quote]Show us what image you are transliterating from and
what exactly you are transliterating.
Now this makes slightly more sense, so long as you're
going to claim that there's more than one version of the
hieroglyphs.
Umm, actually, there is only one "Merneptah victory stele",
So you're agreeing with me; it was a ridicules request.
[/quote]
No, you're putting words into my mouth - or more precisely, editing out
the words I wrote that you can't cope with.
[quote]but there are a few images of it on line.
The very first page returned by Google Images contained 11
images of it, plus two details from the stele (including an
image taken of just the word in question) as well as an image
of the man who found it.
[/quote]
I gave you links to excellent images of the inscription. That's trivially
easy. /Reading/ is the tricky bit.
[quote]Again, that was the very first page.
I'm just going to end this here, right where you ended my
patience.
[/quote]
For 'ended my patience' I'll read 'caused JTEM to confront his own
incomprehension'. Or /can/ you give us a reading of the inscription that
includes the word "mouth"?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Tiglath... |
| Posted: Wed Oct 28, 2009 7:29 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 11:40 am, JTEM <jte... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]Whiskers <catwhee... at (no spam) operamail.com> wrote:
I count more than a dozen 'signs' in the part of the
inscription that is usually identified as referring to
Israel.
The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
(they're not though), count as one...
[/quote]
JTEM gives new meaning to "poaching out of field."
<crapsnip> |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Mon Nov 30, 2009 1:59 pm
|
|