A word about evidence
JTEM
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%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.
Tiglath
> I'm going to take a moment here to
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.
> I will try my
> best to do it with a little maturity and not a lot of
> insults.
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.
>
> Anyhow, this recent example typifies the issue with
> evidence,
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.
> and how many (if not "most") of the people
> here
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.
>
> First, Larry Swain
should stop swamping me with logic, it gives me a head buzz you
wouldn't believe, at least do it gently Larry.
>
> Now here's the problem:
>
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.
> Why not challenge me
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
> eat a banana in one bite?
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...
> Either one would be
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.
>
> Oddly, there are two
things I miss about prison. The banana-in-the-face moments, and the
fudge-packing moments; not separate moments either, necessarily.
> One is so
asphyxiatingly enjoyable, and the other feels so good deep inside, I
just can't decide which one is better. This big mother called
Bubba
> could barely squeeze
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?
>
> Is that what Larry means?
>
> But in case that's not what he means, take your pick:
I have Spideman comics, old issues of Playgirl, and even the Babble
for Dummies.
So where is the evidence?
>
> I just randomly
opened a page of a Playgirl and it's got Burt Reynolds naked. Bubba
is so much bigger, by the way. Any evidence there?
>
> Does Larry Swain accept
a picture of Burt Reynolds butt naked as evidence?
> He was not capable of performing a rudimentary
rim job on Burt if he tried. I betcha.
>
> Even stranger: What if I was like Larry and couldn't
> perform rudimentary
banana throating? I betcha the damned bookworm can't.
> Would that be "Proof" that
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.
> one of the signs
is that Larry probably has hairless palms. No good.
>
> Sorry, but even
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
LloydB
>
> 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.
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.)
Jack Teehan
LloydB <bogart.l...@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?
Peter Alaca
Is this archaeology now?
LloydB
wrote:
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.
Tiglath
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.
Tom McDonald
Still, the odd removal of sci.archaeology from this sort of thread
would not go a miss.
Whiskers
>
> 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?
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).
> 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.
>> 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", 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>.
> Only, if there was more than one version of the text,
> wouldn't that be evidence for forgery?
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.
> 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.
Not the copy in the Harvard Semitic Museum then. Are you going to reveal
which image you're using?
> 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?
You're the one who hasn't been offering anything to support your claims.
> 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?
Strange indeed. Please don't try to explain that either.
> Sorry, but even what at it's face might be mistaken for
> a reasonable challenge is itself another irrelevant
> demand.
Either the inscription says one thing, or it says another thing. Why
don't you back up your own opinion?
--
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
-- Whiskers
-- ~~~~~~~~~~
JTEM
LloydB <bogart.l...@uwlax.edu> wrote:
> Bottom line: the Thread Topic isn't
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.
JTEM
Whiskers <catwhee...@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?
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.
> (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'.
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....
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.
> > 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.
It was self explanatory.
> >> 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.
> 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.
Again, that was the very first page.
I'm just going to end this here, right where you ended my
patience.
Whiskers
> Whiskers <catwh...@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?
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'.
> 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? The ones you silently edited
out of your response?
>> (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?
> 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....
So you don't know what that mark means.
> 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.
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'.
> 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?
<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?
> http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-egyptian-hieroglyphics.html
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.
> 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.
Go on then, tell us what your expert reading of the inscription is.
>> > 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.
>
> It was self explanatory.
I was rather afraid it might be.
>> >> 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.
No, you're putting words into my mouth - or more precisely, editing out
the words I wrote that you can't cope with.
>> 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.
I gave you links to excellent images of the inscription. That's trivially
easy. /Reading/ is the tricky bit.
> Again, that was the very first page.
>
> I'm just going to end this here, right where you ended my
> patience.
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"?
JTEM
Whiskers <catwhee...@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...
....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.
> > 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?
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?
> >> (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?
If you look /real/ close I'm sure you'll see that I just answered
that question.
> > Again, nothing more than a rudimentary Google search....
>
> So you don't know what that mark means.
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.
> >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.
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.
> >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?
What possible relevance could that have?
It provides you with the answer that you were too retarded to
find on your own. Enjoy.
> Whoever wrote this, they offer an explanation for your 'literal mark':
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....
> So are you saying that
At this point all I'm doing is laughing at you.
> >http://www.buzzle.com/articles/history-of-egyptian-hieroglyphics.html
>
> Not a bad article, mostly; written by
Given your performance thus far, that's a pretty strong
condemnation...
> >> Umm, actually, there is only one "Merneptah victory stele",
>
> > So you're agreeing with me; it was a ridicules request.
>
> No,
So you lack reading comprehension.
> I gave you links to excellent images of the inscription.
> That's trivially easy.
You just said that there are few images of it online.
> /Reading/ is the tricky bit.
And, for some people, counting.
> For 'ended my patience' I'll read
...whatever
your jerking knee tells you.
Enjoy.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> wank to
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...
> Wear your pilot suit, George.
You don't usually stick this close to a topic. Did
something happen? Are you ill?
> But I will probably fail because of inborn felonious
> levels of stupidity.
Certain things can just be taken for granted, if you
know what I mean.
> Where is that you guys go get it? It beats me.
Very much like your parents, I suspect.
> They post scholarly references with the name of the
> author, the
Real people have names. Real references not only exist,
but actually support the claims being made. Clearly you
don't understand.
> I am really familiar with Mein Kampf,
That'll look good on a resume...
> should stop swamping me with logic,
Aaaaaaaaand.... Scene!
Tiglath
> Whiskers <catwhee...@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...
>
>
JTEM gives new meaning to "poaching out of field."
<crapsnip>
Whiskers
Anyone would think that he doesn't know that the articles he butchers in
his replies are still there in their original form for anyone to read.
It's difficult to imagine any other explanation for his conduct.
Weland
> 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:
Regrettably the problem has not been accurately identified. I'll
respond to what is mistakenly called the problem below.
The problem is that the 7 signs JTEM identifies must include the initial
flowering reeds twice. The flowering reed represents a palatal glide
and is usually transliterated as "i" or "ii" in some contexts; the
double flowering reed is taken as a "y" and so transliterated (unless
transliterating into German in which case "j") with a "y". Thus, the
problem here is that the objection to the proffered transliteration
"ysra3l" is based on not knowing about what phoneme the double flowering
reed symbol signifies. Of course, if our correspondent wishes to insist
that each symbol stand for one phoneme then we have to transliterate:
"yisra3l".
>
> :> So transliterate it for us young JStupid.
>
> Why? Because if I don't then one of the signs will vanish,
> leaving only your six?
To show that you actually know what the issues are. But since you
insist, as shown above, your objection is based on not knowing the
phonemic values of the signs.
> 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.
Because since we're discussing the meaning of a word written in Ancient
Egyptian on an ancient stele, demonstrating that you know the language
and the script under discussion is germane and important whereas the
other examples you give are not....an example of another fallacy.
>
>>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.
Nope. I just figured that it'd be best if you were really going to give
us a transliteration of the line or even the word based on your work
that we should all be working off the same image so as to avoid
misunderstandings. Regrettably, you side-step the issue and do not give
us a transliteration, image, or anything particularly related to the
discussion.
>
> Only, if there was more than one version of the text,
> wouldn't that be evidence for forgery?
Note the segue away from the topic: what the stele says, to inferring
something else entirely based on a fallacious non sequitur.
>
> 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.
Yes, they made copies.
>
> Is that what Larry means? He wants to know which of
> the two steles I'm referring to?
> Well, the "intact" one.
Note again the avoidance of simply answering the challenge: transcribe
and provide a reference to what is being transcribed. Instead, we have
this series of statements unrelated to the topic, questions that I
certainly never asked, and then answers to those questions. It would
have been simpler and shorter to answer the challenge...unless of course
there is an inability to answer the challenge, in which case such a
response as this would be necessary as a cover.
>
> 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.
Lack of addressing the challenge noted.
>
> 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?
Non sequitur and straw man in one go.
> 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?
As above.
> Sorry, but even what at it's face might be mistaken for
> a reasonable challenge is itself another irrelevant
> demand.
I'm afraid that asking you to demonstrate any expertise in the tools
needed to adequately discuss the issue is relevant, in fact, central to
your claims. Your inability to do so does rather demonstrate that your
claims are without foundation.
It is interesting that in a discussion of "evidence", the OP offers
instead a series of logical fallacies as a demonstration of the right
kind of evidence. Interesting.
Weland
> Whiskers <catwhee...@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...
Indeed, which would then make the number of symbols in the name 6....and
let's remember that you were whinging not long ago about how there were
seven signs, not six.
>>
>>Has anyone ever said there is anything on the stele that
>>should be read as an L?
>
>
> If you look /real/ close I'm sure you'll see that I just answered
> that question.
Indeed, no one has ever claimed that it should be read as an "L" as has
been stated many times. Yet, JTEM continues to make the claim that that
is what is being said.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
> > (they're not though), count as one...
>
> JTEM gives new meaning to
So you're saying that it would be unreasonable for someone
to assume that a glyph which appears like a feather might
actually depict a feather, or is it the idea that two signs might
be able to make up one letter that's taxed your brain?
Oh, don't bother. Whatever you say will either be completely
out of context or even more stupid.
Congratulations on another three days of avoiding a single
on-topic word though. That's quite a feat.
JTEM
Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> Anyone would think that he doesn't know that the articles
> he butchers
Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
insist.
As that no doubt went over your head...
You're supposed to trim, idiot.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
> > (they're not though), count as one...
>
> Indeed, which would then make the number of symbols
> in the name 6.
Seven, actually. But math was always your worst subject,
after ancient history.
Just the reed signs and mouth signs (counting the first
two reeds as one) gets us to four.
I'll let you add up the rest on your own, comfortable in
the knowledge that you won't....
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> The problem is that the 7 signs JTEM identifies must
> include the initial flowering reeds twice.
Not at all. That would result in eight.
Man, you really do suck at counting...
The flowering reed represents a palatal glide
> and is usually transliterated as "i" or "ii" in some contexts; the
> double flowering reed is taken as a "y"
It's rare to see anything but the double reed in the beginning of
a word.... immediately contradicting myself with the example
of Amon, but at least beating you to the punch.
Counted as one, that brings the total to seven.
Tiglath
> Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
> and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
> insist.
>
Two incomplete thoughts mashed into a complete sentence.
Remarkable.
JTEMS thinking, and by extension his writing, is as clean as a whistle
full of spit.
Tiglath
Imagine all the potential employees, girlfriends, boyfriends, googling
this goober and finding the epitome of inanity in each of the dozens
of posts he adds to the archives.
What a find.
"Oops, Mary, we won't he hiring this cuckoo, shred his curriculum."
Is it a sin to lead the twit to more curriculum shredding?
Whiskers
> Whiskers <catwh...@operamail.com> wrote:
>
>> Anyone would think that he doesn't know that the articles
>> he butchers
>
> Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
> and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
> insist.
>
> As that no doubt went over your head...
It failed to reach the level of having meaning.
> You're supposed to trim, idiot.
You're supposed to respond to points and questions, not carve up articles
into something they weren't, ignore the relevent points entirely, give
trite or silly responses to points and questions you've invented for
yourself, and insult everyone. When you "trim", you're supposed to
indicate the places where you've removed text from the article you're
responding to.
Were it not for your entertainment value, no-one would tolerate your
misconduct.
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
> > > (they're not though), count as one...
>
> > JTEM gives new meaning to
>
> So you're saying that it would be unreasonable for someone
> to assume
Given that your training on Semitic language and knowledge of the
ancient Levant is -- I cannot put it more gently -- pathetic, it's not
only unreasonable but, well, pathetic.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> On Oct 29, 10:11 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
> > and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
> > insist.
>
> Two incomplete thoughts
No. One single missing word: "Not," which should be between
"is" and "the" in the second line.
Then again, you were never very bright....
JTEM
Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> You're supposed to respond to points and questions,
As I did. The whole idea that your inability to find
something using Google would have been turned into
Nobel Prize winning science if -- and only if -- I had
quoted your entire post is, like most everything you
say, pure drivel.
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Given that your training
What you dod or do not imagine my "training" to be
is irrelevant. I ask you again, shit for brains:
Are you saying that it would be unreasonable for someone
to assume that a glyph which appears like a feather might
actually depict a feather, or is it the idea that two signs might
be able to make up one letter that's taxed your brain?
Which is it, shit for brains?
Tiglath
> Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 29, 10:11 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Whiskers <catwhee...@operamail.com> wrote:
> > > Believe it or not, retard, an inability to distinguish main points
> > > and topical sentences is the height of intellect that you trolls
> > > insist.
>
> > Two incomplete thoughts
>
> No. One single missing word
a few missing screws and quite a few others fairly lose.
JTEM
Whiskers
Tiglath
Given that your training on Semitic language and knowledge of the
ancient Levant is -- I will no longer put it gently -- is as erudite
as the donkey whose dick you like to suck on, your assumption is as
reasonable as a dozen hollowpoints in center mass.
Tiglath
>
> I'll let you add up the rest on your own, comfortable in
> the knowledge that you won't....
You don't really have to be a cheese-dick everyday of your life, did
you know?
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>JTEM wrote:
>
>
>>>The first two, the ones that kind of look like feathers
>>>(they're not though), count as one...
>>
>>Indeed, which would then make the number of symbols
>>in the name 6.
>
>
> Seven, actually. But math was always your worst subject,
> after ancient history.
So tell us about each of these signs, which image you are using, and
what sounds each sign signifies. That should be simple for one as
knowledgeable as you, right?
Weland
So tell us about each sign, what sound it signifies. This is the
beginning of answering the challenge for you to provide a single valid
reason that it doesn't read as a reference to Israel.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> So tell us about each sign, what sound it signifies.
Why? If I don't then one of the signs will vanish, leaving
only six? Is that what that dry rot you call a brain
believe? Sheesh!
Go read the first article in this thread, again. You're
highlighting my point here -- the fact that you and
other bible thumpers honestly don't know what is or
is not a legitimate argument, what is and is not
"Evidence."
...which is why your conclusions are so faulty.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> So tell us about each of these signs,
So you're back to constructing illegitimate tests,
ones that can't possibly reveal anything relevant.
You're simply hoping to trip me up.
...or am I giving you too much credit here, and
you really believe that I either jump through your
hoops or one of the signs will vanish, leaving only
six?
So which is it, shit for brains? Are you intellectually
bankrupt and must resort to cheap gimmicks, or
are you retarded and unaware of the fact that you're
spewing cheap gimmicks & misrepresenting them
as arguments?
JTEM
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Given that
Wow. So now you're misrepresenting your emotional
problems as "insight."
You just keep getting funnier, and funnier and funnier...
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> Imagine all the potential employees, girlfriends,
> boyfriends, googling
This explains the "Tiglath" handle, not to mention the
adoption of "Weland."
JTEM
Tiglath <te...@tiglath.net> wrote:
> a few missing screws
You're being modest. You've actually got quite a
few screws missing.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So tell us about each of these signs,
>
>
> So you're back to constructing illegitimate tests,
> ones that can't possibly reveal anything relevant.
LOL!!!!!!!!!! Do you work at being this stupid, or does it come
naturally? Please, do explain discussing the graphemes and what they
mean is irrelevant to a discussion about the graphemes and what they mean!
> You're simply hoping to trip me up.
HAHHAHAHA!! No, you do that all by yourself. I'm simply giving you
another opportunity to do so.
> ...or am I giving you too much credit here, and
> you really believe that I either jump through your
> hoops or one of the signs will vanish, leaving only
> six?
Oh, what I know is that you know neither the language nor the script and
so any claim you make regarding the number of signs and what they mean
is based in your own ignorance. If you knew the language or script
you'd produce already and prove me wrong: but since you keep avoiding
answering, we can sit and laugh at you.
> So which is it, shit for brains?
False dichotomy....another fallacy.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>So tell us about each sign, what sound it signifies.
>
>
> Why? If I don't then one of the signs will vanish, leaving
> only six? Is that what that dry rot you call a brain
> believe? Sheesh!
Oooo, and now a straw man argument....AGAIN! Addressed in previous post.
>
> Go read the first article in this thread, again.
You mean the one that out of one side of your mouth you accuse me of
fallacies while each accusation is merely a fallacy itself and you've
been caught out? I thought so.
You're
> highlighting my point here -- the fact that you and
> other bible thumpers honestly don't know what is or
> is not a legitimate argument, what is and is not
> "Evidence."
Considering that you believe that discussion of what a text says is
irrelevant to knowing what a text says, no one should take your word on
what evidence is and is not.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Well that was insightful.
However, people who aren't emotionally disturbed as you
are know that I am right -- that your reply was irrelevant,
that it in no way would or could alter the facts here.
> > You're simply hoping to trip me up.
>
> HAHHAHAHA!! No, you do that all by yourself.
So I was granting you too much credit, and you only
do these things because you honestly don't know
the difference between a legitimate argument and an
illegitimate one... Okay.
This is not exactly difficult to believe, not will all the
crap you've spewed over the years.
Tiglath
JTEM accusing people of "handles."
Hilarious.
There are no mirrors in JTEM's trailer, and for good reason.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
First, Shit for Brains, Larry Swain aka Weland,
brings us back to Square-One, posting yet another
example of what I was talking about in the original
post which started this thread:
> > Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
> >>So tell us about each sign, what sound it signifies.
I remind everyone who can distinguish legitimate
arguments from illegitimate ones: What would happen
if I failed? Would that cause one of the signs to vanish,
leaving only the "Six" that Larry Swain incorrectly
counted?
Of course not. His "Test" would not nor could not
impact on the question under... under... we'll say
"Debate" for now. His "Test" would not nor could
not impact on the debate. It's entirely irrelevant.
Oddly, Larry Swain claims that this is not some feeble
attempt to trip me up, that he really does see this as
relevant to the question.
Well, at least he denied the merely-trying-to-trip-me-up
charge in another post.
Bad liar or retard? You decide.
If you choose "Bad liar," ask yourself why he would stoop
to such a thing, if he has an honest position to stand on.
Tiglath
The funniest people are those who post serious things like.
"If Suetonius ever existed."
Whoever wired your brain, must have electrocuted himself long ago.
Tiglath
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> > LOL!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Well that was insightful.
>
> However, people who aren't emotionally disturbed
The same boring repetitious repartee. All his critics are insane and
sock-puppets. Over and over again.
Such lack of imagination. Such poverty of wit.
Such constancy in foolishness.
Such JTEM.
Weland
Indeed: your objections are laughable and not based on any fact.
Everyone but you has had that insight.
>
> However, people who aren't emotionally disturbed as you
> are know that I am right -- that your reply was irrelevant,
> that it in no way would or could alter the facts here.
Name one....besides you, Giwer, and Martinus Idiota, oh and our old
friend Cinnabon.
>
>
>>>You're simply hoping to trip me up.
>>
>>HAHHAHAHA!! No, you do that all by yourself.
>
>
> So I was granting you too much credit, and you only
> do these things because you honestly don't know
> the difference between a legitimate argument and an
> illegitimate one... Okay.
Says the chap caught in another fallacy and sidestepping the issue.
Here it again for you:
"Oh, what I know is that you know neither the language nor the script
and so any claim you make regarding the number of signs and what they
mean is based in your own ignorance. If you knew the language or script
you'd produce already and prove me wrong: but since you keep avoiding
answering, we can sit and laugh at you."
You'll predictably snip this, and not address the facts, but there it is.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
> First, Shit for Brains, Larry Swain aka Weland,
> brings us back to Square-One, posting yet another
> example of what I was talking about in the original
> post which started this thread:
>
>
>>> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>So tell us about each sign, what sound it signifies.
>
>
> I remind everyone who can distinguish legitimate
> arguments from illegitimate ones: What would happen
> if I failed?
It would show what we already know: you don't the language, or the
script, or what those signs mean, yet run around and declare you do and
that everyone else is wrong. So go ahead: show us you know these
things. Stop side stepping, craven JStupid.
>Would that cause one of the signs to vanish,
> leaving only the "Six" that Larry Swain incorrectly
> counted?
Are you sure they're all signs? They all signify different phonemes?
Do you know what a phoneme is?
> Of course not. His "Test" would not nor could not
> impact on the question under... under...
Yes it would. But since you failed to enter junior high, it's no
surprise that you can't figure that out.
we'll say
> "Debate" for now. His "Test" would not nor could
> not impact on the debate. It's entirely irrelevant.
Fallacy, again. Identifying what the text says is the first step in
identifying what the text means. If you can't do the former, and are
rejecting what qualified experts have published informing you what it
says, you'd best have the skill to do it yourself. If you don't, then
all you are is a laughable clown. But we already knew that.
>
> Bad liar or retard? You decide.
Well, you are both. You've been caught out in many lies, and any jester
who doesn't think that identifying what the text says is relevant to
deciding what the text says is like saying "that's not an egg, it's an egg!"
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> The problem is that the 7 signs JTEM identifies must
> include the initial flowering reeds twice.
http://img299.imageshack.us/i/israelpg0.jpg/
Count the signs. It's that simple. If you count the initial
double reeds sign as one that brings the total to seven,
plus the literal mark under the second mouth sign, plus
the determinatives.
Here's another image if you want to pretend I invented
that first one:
http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/images/deve-03-l.jpg
Here's Wiki's rendition showing the exact same signs:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/YsyriAr.gif
Here's another artistic rendition described as "adapted from
Laughlin" (Laughlin, John. Archaeology and the Bible.
Routledge: 2000)
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/otarch_merneptah_stele.gif
Let's move back to a photograph for this one:
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-merneptah-stele-israel.jpg
Same website:
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-merneptah-stele-israel.jpg
Not a photo, but stemming from the original source of the claim:
http://creationwiki.org/pool/images/4/49/Merenptah_Stele_text_from_Petrie_1897.png
(Second to last line)
Here's one of your fellow bible thumpers:
http://bibleprobe.com/merenptahstele.jpg
Anyhow, one thing that ALL of these images have in common is
that they ALL depict the word containing seven signs, plus the
literal mark and determinatives.... if you count the initial two reeds
as one sign (which we both do).
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> It would show what we already know: you don't the
> language, or the script,
Okay, moron, let's say that I don't know any language,
nor any script, including the English language....
How does this result in one of the signs vanishing, leaving
only your six?
Explain it, Larry. Give it your best shot. Seriously, really
impress us with your ability to form a coherent thought.
Maybe after you've once again failed you'll go back to the
first post -- the one that started this thread -- and see that,
yes, you've just posted yet ANOTHER example of You.
Not. Getting. It.
Because it is a rather simple matter of counting
the signs. Ignoring the literal mark beneath the second
mouth sign, and counting the initial pair of reeds as one,
there really is a total of seven signs plus determinatives.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It would show what we already know: you don't the
>>language, or the script,
>
>
> Okay, moron, let's say that I don't know any language,
> nor any script, including the English language....
Hey, let's.
>
> How does this result in one of the signs vanishing, leaving
> only your six?
What matters is what of those signs has phonemic value, to determine
morphology, to determine semantics. You claim I mistransliterated: so
show how it's done, JStupid....you keep avoiding doing just that.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>The problem is that the 7 signs JTEM identifies must
>>include the initial flowering reeds twice.
>
>
> http://img299.imageshack.us/i/israelpg0.jpg/
>
> Count the signs. It's that simple.
Ok, so it took you this long to look at the line? Now what convinces
you that every sign has phonemic value? Remember, the issue that you
objected to was my transliteration of name. So if I'm wrong, it must
mean that you know how to read those signs on the stele...so show us
that you do. I note again, that you have so far failed to do so...along
with all the other challenges you've been given.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Hey, let's.
Hey, ignorant coward: Are you as big a pussy as I've
always said, or are you ready to borrow some maturity
and admit your stupid mistake?
Go on, shit for brains, prove me wrong about you being
the single biggest pussy on usenet, and admit your
error. I dare you to. Go on, pussy, admit that you were
wrong when you spent days defending your "Six" (instead
of seven) hieroglyphs.
> What matters is what of those signs has phonemic value,
The signs which you can't even count? You haven't the
faintest clue how many are depicted on the stone, yet you
want to pretend that you're qualified to read them?
Damn, you do you think you're fooling?
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> Ok, so it took you this long to look at the line?
Wait a minute. You spent DAYS defending YOUR
claim that there are only six signs depicted... in
addition to misunderstanding what a "Circular
Argument" is.
You have ZERO credibility, despite your constant bluffing.
And to prove it, once again, you're not trying to bullshit
everyone into thinking that your ignorance (you didn't even
know how many signs were carved there!) makes you an
intellectual giant.
Go fuck yourself, you worthless moron.
Weland
>
>
> The signs which you can't even count?
No, the ones you can't read.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Ok, so it took you this long to look at the line?
>
>
> Wait a minute. You spent DAYS defending YOUR
I spent days asking you to tell us how to read it, giving a detailed
account of each sign and its phonemic value to render the name. You've
avoided this, throwing up sand, kicking your legs wildly, and creating
nonsense...because you are unable to read it, tell us the phonemic
values, etc.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> No, the ones you can't read.
If you could read the signs you would not only know
how many there are, but you wouldn't keep "reading"
words which aren't there.
Idiot.
JTEM
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> JTEM wrote:
> > Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
> >>Ok, so it took you this long to look at the line?
>
> > Wait a minute. You spent DAYS defending YOUR
> > addition to misunderstanding what a "Circular
> > Argument" is.
> I spent days asking you to tell us how to read it,
Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
: Indeed, which would then make the number of symbols
: in the name 6....and let's remember that you were
: whinging not long ago about how there were
: seven signs, not six.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/be201121e1e40ef4?hl=en&dmode=source
Your retard -- not related to the topic -- "challenge"
only came AFTER you misidentified the number of
signs.
Anyhow, shit for brains, I will respond to your idiotic
smoke screen yet again...
> giving a detailed account of each sign and its phonemic
> value to render the name.
As I said the first time you grasped hold of this "Argument"
like a drowning man to a life preserver:
Why? Is the claim that if I don't, or can't, then one of the
signs will magically vanish, leaving only your six?
Again, shit for brains, go back and read the first article
in this thread. You know, the one your mental disorder
stopped you from reading the first... second... third time
I directed you to it.
Good luck.
Weland
Prove it isn't there and that it's something else....by an analysis of
the signs, their phonological/phonemic values, and what the name or word
in Middle Egyptian would be. But you won't because you can't.
Weland
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>
>>JTEM wrote:
>>
>>> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>Ok, so it took you this long to look at the line?
>>
>>>Wait a minute. You spent DAYS defending YOUR
>>>claim that there are only six signs depicted... in
>>>addition to misunderstanding what a "Circular
>>>Argument" is.
>
>
>>I spent days asking you to tell us how to read it,
>
>
> Weland <gi...@poetic.com> wrote:
> : Indeed, which would then make the number of symbols
> : in the name 6....and let's remember that you were
> : whinging not long ago about how there were
> : seven signs, not six.
> http://groups.google.com/group/soc.history.ancient/msg/be201121e1e40ef4?hl=en&dmode=source
>
> Your retard -- not related to the topic -- "challenge"
Yep, and if you knew the language, you'd know the basis for my
statement. Which is why I keep inviting you to show your knowledge.
Instead, you show us your ignorance, as predicted. And then compound
your ignorance with stupidity by claiming that discussing the nature of
the name is not related to discussing the nature of the name. None too
bright is our JTard.
>
>>giving a detailed account of each sign and its phonemic
>>value to render the name.
>
>
> As I said the first time you grasped hold of this "Argument"
> like a drowning man to a life preserver:
Already responded to this several times over. Poor JTard now reveals an
inability to read English on top of his inability to do anything else.
JTEM
> 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%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.
All the links are expired so:
ajsrjAr(w)
That's how "Israel" is transliterated. It's actually the very first
transliteration I recall seeing.
https://www.academia.edu/63556549/Israel_and_the_Merneptah_Stela
Nutters will love the cite as it appears to confirm their bias,
even as their transliteration shatters it.
-- --
https://jtem.tumblr.com/post/741817533268656128