KV35YL anyone want to talk about ancient Egypt?

[JTEM]

KV35YL is the "Young Lady" found in
tomb KV35 -- hence, "KV35YL."

Pretty sneaky, Sis...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady

What I find utterly fascinating about her is
not only the fact that she appears certain to
have given birth to the famous King Tut (yes,
the mummy was the mommy of another mummy),
but a very large chunk of her face is missing,
and by all appearances it was the cause of
her death.

THE IMPLICATIONS!

This woman didn't die, she was murdered. She
was brutally murdered. She was clearly royalty,
a "King's Mother" -- a title that carried some
weight in ancient Egypt -- and she was put to
death. Murdered.

There's a story here. There is a MASSIVE
story here. But, nobody seems to want to
discuss it.

Was she murdered by religious zealots as
revenge for the Amarna heresy? Did her
death PROVOKE some of Akhenaten's actions
against the the Amun cult or was it in
retaliation for his actions?

Did such violence end the Amarna period?
De-thrown Akhenaten?

Well the evidence seems pretty strong that
she was our King Tut's mom (his Mummy?), so
she couldn't have died until AFTER he was
born, and if he died at the ripe old age of
19, he would probably have been born around
1342 BC(E). Thus, if his mom's violent death
marks the end of the Amarna period, that
would have made her about 19 when he was
born...

Alternatively, she might have been murdered
sometime AFTER the the death of Akhenaten,
to keep her from becoming regent over her
young son.

What saith you?




-- --

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/417696271/refused-to-die-working-title

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <68482f30-4a3d-4fa9...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/22/2015:

> KV35YL is the "Young Lady" found in
> tomb KV35 -- hence, "KV35YL."
>
> Pretty sneaky, Sis...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady
>
> What I find utterly fascinating about her is
> not only the fact that she appears certain to
> have given birth to the famous King Tut (yes,
> the mummy was the mommy of another mummy),
> but a very large chunk of her face is missing,
> and by all appearances it was the cause of
> her death.

Do you have a reference for this?

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> JTEM wrote on 5/22/2015:
> > KV35YL is the "Young Lady" found in
> > tomb KV35 -- hence, "KV35YL."
> >
> > Pretty sneaky, Sis...
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady
> >
> > What I find utterly fascinating about her is
> > not only the fact that she appears certain to
> > have given birth to the famous King Tut (yes,
> > the mummy was the mommy of another mummy),
> > but a very large chunk of her face is missing,
> > and by all appearances it was the cause of
> > her death.

> Do you have a reference for this?

Yes I have a whole archive on my web page. It's
called "Google.com." The files are all hidden
though, you won't see any if you visit my page.
You'll have to enter my secret password first:

"KV35YL"

Got that?

Go to my private webpage -- http://www.google.com --
and then enter the secret password to gain access to
all my files on the topic: "KV35YL"

Got that? Are we clear on this?

Good.

Now no more talk about references. We wouldn't want
my secret to get out...







-- --

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/417696271/refused-to-die-working-title

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <71180e36-7fa7-49eb...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/23/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote on 5/22/2015:
>>> KV35YL is the "Young Lady" found in
>>> tomb KV35 -- hence, "KV35YL."
>>>
>>> Pretty sneaky, Sis...
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady
>>>
>>> What I find utterly fascinating about her is
>>> not only the fact that she appears certain to
>>> have given birth to the famous King Tut (yes,
>>> the mummy was the mommy of another mummy),
>>> but a very large chunk of her face is missing,
>>> and by all appearances it was the cause of
>>> her death.
>
>> Do you have a reference for this?
>
> Yes I have a whole archive on my web page. It's
> called "Google.com." The files are all hidden
> though, you won't see any if you visit my page.
> You'll have to enter my secret password first:
>
> "KV35YL"
>
> Got that?
>
> Go to my private webpage -- http://www.google.com --
> and then enter the secret password to gain access to
> all my files on the topic: "KV35YL"
>
> Got that? Are we clear on this?

Be more specific. There are 8590 results, and everyone gets them in a
different order.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <71180e36-7fa7-49eb...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/23/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> JTEM wrote on 5/22/2015:
>>> KV35YL is the "Young Lady" found in
>>> tomb KV35 -- hence, "KV35YL."
>>>
>>> Pretty sneaky, Sis...
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady
>>>
>>> What I find utterly fascinating about her is
>>> not only the fact that she appears certain to
>>> have given birth to the famous King Tut (yes,
>>> the mummy was the mommy of another mummy),
>>> but a very large chunk of her face is missing,
>>> and by all appearances it was the cause of
>>> her death.
>
>> Do you have a reference for this?
>
> Yes I have a whole archive on my web page. It's
> called "Google.com." The files are all hidden
> though, you won't see any if you visit my page.
> You'll have to enter my secret password first:
>
> "KV35YL"
>
> Got that?
>
> Go to my private webpage -- http://www.google.com --
> and then enter the secret password to gain access to
> all my files on the topic: "KV35YL"

The references I get say "badly damaged mummy"

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <mjqcle$7l2$1...@dont-email.me>, Yusuf B Gursey wrote on 5/23/2015:
> In <68482f30-4a3d-4fa9...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote on
> 5/22/2015:
>> KV35YL is the "Young Lady" found in
>> tomb KV35 -- hence, "KV35YL."
>>
>> Pretty sneaky, Sis...
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady
>>
>> What I find utterly fascinating about her is
>> not only the fact that she appears certain to
>> have given birth to the famous King Tut (yes,
>> the mummy was the mommy of another mummy),
>> but a very large chunk of her face is missing,
>> and by all appearances it was the cause of
>> her death.
>
> Do you have a reference for this?

OK.

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393

Hawass Z, Gad YZ, Ismail S, et al. Ancestry and pathology in King
Tutankhamun’s family.
JAMA. 2010;303(7):638-647.
eAppendix. Details of Methods, Results, and Comment (text updated
online April 26, 2010)

p. 3

"The head injuries of the Younger Lady in KV35 were lethal"

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> Be more specific. There are 8590 results, and
> everyone gets them in a different order.

It might help if you gave me some hint as to
what, specifically, you want references for.

This would be unusually appropriate here, seeing
how the subject is what are the implications here,
given the physical evidence of the murder and all
we know of the Amarna Period.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119713378653

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> "The head injuries of the Younger Lady in KV35 were lethal"

as per your usual, all this time, all these responses
and all you've done was dispute a fact which you always
had a reference for...

You found that in the Wiki article, did you?

There's a reason why we clash, and this is yet
another example of it...





-- --

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/417696271/refused-to-die-working-title

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <95e0ba42-bdff-40f0...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/24/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> Be more specific. There are 8590 results, and
>> everyone gets them in a different order.
>
> It might help if you gave me some hint as to
> what, specifically, you want references for.

I found it. The study that determined that head injuries were the cause
of her death. See my post on this thread.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <b4109d2f-4ff5-4fe7...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/24/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> "The head injuries of the Younger Lady in KV35 were lethal"
>
> as per your usual, all this time, all these responses
> and all you've done was dispute a fact which you always
> had a reference for...
>

I didn't dispute anything. I asked.

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> I didn't dispute anything. I asked.

You asked for something the wiki article -- WHICH
I POSTED A LINK TO -- providing.

You did not respond to anything I said.

You offered no insight or opinion.

You simply challenged the facts, you challenged
reality... as always.

As always, you strive to STOP discussion, block
it at every turn.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119750859502

[Wayne Brown]

On Mon, 25 May 2015 19:34:48 in article <160b666c-837c-4318...@googlegroups.com> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> I didn't dispute anything. I asked.
>
> You asked for something the wiki article -- WHICH
> I POSTED A LINK TO -- providing.
>
> You did not respond to anything I said.
>
> You offered no insight or opinion.
>
> You simply challenged the facts, you challenged
> reality... as always.
>
> As always, you strive to STOP discussion, block
> it at every turn.

He asked for a reference that he apparently overlooked the first time
around. Later, after you were unhelpful in figuring out his mistake,
he went back and found it for himself. That isn't such a terrible crime.

Personally, I didn't bother to follow your link at all. I probably
would have, but was deterred by these statements of yours: "There is a
MASSIVE story here. But, nobody seems to want to discuss it." As soon
as I saw that I thought, "JTEM's found another hobby-horse to ride,
another chance to 'prove' somebody wrong about something." That was
enough to make we lose interest in pursuing it any further.

You never seem to want to talk about anything unless it's controversial.
Simply reporting some interesting archaeological discovery or bit of
historical information isn't enough. There has to be some hidden secret,
some conspiracy to expose, some angle that nobody else has seen, some
sort of drama to exploit. That gets pretty tiresome pretty fast.

--
F. Wayne Brown <fwb...@bellsouth.net>

ur sag9-ga ur-tur-še3 ba-an-kur9
"A dog that is played with turns into a puppy." (Sumerian proverb)

[JTEM]

Wayne Brown wrote:

> He asked for a reference that he apparently
> overlooked the first time around.

You ask because a) Google broke b) you're an idiot
or c) because the goal is to shut down discussion.

> Later, after you were unhelpful

Or, sick of the bullshit. Like now, for example.

This isn't "Queen For A Day." If the topic doesn't
interest you, go away.

> Personally, I

Grow up.

If the topic doesn't interest you, don't respond.

Why is that so hard?






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119750859502

[Wayne Brown]

It isn't that the topic isn't interesting, it's that your infantile
theatrics suck all the pleasure out of discussing it.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <160b666c-837c-4318...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/25/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> I didn't dispute anything. I asked.
>
> You asked for something the wiki article -- WHICH
> I POSTED A LINK TO -- providing.

You could have provided the substance.

>
> You did not respond to anything I said.

I just asked a question.

>
> You offered no insight or opinion.

I didn't claim to.

>
> You simply challenged the facts, you challenged
> reality... as always.

No.

>
> As always, you strive to STOP discussion, block
> it at every turn.

No.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <mk2na8$igp$1...@dont-email.me>, Wayne Brown wrote on 5/26/2015:
> On Mon, 25 May 2015 19:34:48 in article
> <160b666c-837c-4318...@googlegroups.com> JTEM
> <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>
>>> I didn't dispute anything. I asked.
>>
>> You asked for something the wiki article -- WHICH
>> I POSTED A LINK TO -- providing.
>>
>> You did not respond to anything I said.
>>
>> You offered no insight or opinion.
>>
>> You simply challenged the facts, you challenged
>> reality... as always.
>>
>> As always, you strive to STOP discussion, block
>> it at every turn.
>
> He asked for a reference that he apparently overlooked the first time
> around. Later, after you were unhelpful in figuring out his mistake,
> he went back and found it for himself. That isn't such a terrible crime.
>

Yes.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <160b666c-837c-4318...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/25/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> I didn't dispute anything. I asked.
>
> You asked for something the wiki article -- WHICH
> I POSTED A LINK TO -- providing.
>
> You did not respond to anything I said.
>
> You offered no insight or opinion.
>

Well, I could say: "Not so surprising" since it was a period palace
intrigue and instability.

Perhaps Ay was responsible. But that is just a guess. If not Horemheb.
There is no information available.

[rasand...@gmail.com]

some years ago i saw on history program stating that people didn't look upon the change of religion, in such drastic way, too favorably and due to that there were plots to get rid of all that were 'in the way'
for that reason alone it would not surprise me if she truly would have been killed

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <b7872407-4a08-4e7f...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/26/2015:

> Wayne Brown wrote:
>
>> He asked for a reference that he apparently
>> overlooked the first time around.

I asked because you said "*by all apearances* it was the cause of her
death" (emphasis mine). This strictly speaking isn't fully true, since
the gap in her face could have been caused by tomb robbers' actions,
and this was the impression of archaeologists until the forensic
analysis by Hawass's team. Indeed, other damage found in the mummy
seems to have been caused by tomb robbers.

I didn't read the Wiki article carefully at first, didn't notice the
reference and so asked for it. Phrasing it as "by all appearances" also
opens up the possibility that this is just your subjective impression.

>
> You ask because a) Google broke b) you're an idiot
> or c) because the goal is to shut down discussion.

Asking a question in order to shut down a discussion is absurd, as a
question is meant to elicit a response. Besides, I was the first
responder, so there was no discussion to shut down.

>
>> Later, after you were unhelpful
>
> Or, sick of the bullshit. Like now, for example.
>
> This isn't "Queen For A Day." If the topic doesn't
> interest you, go away.
>
>> Personally, I
>
> Grow up.
>
> If the topic doesn't interest you, don't respond.

You are the one who is entirely off topic, since you prefer to discuss
my posting habits rather than the mummy or the person.

[JTEM]

Wayne Brown wrote:

> It isn't that the topic isn't interesting

...which is why you have yet to post on
the topic.

You are what you do. You are a shit head.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119939895143

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> I asked because you said "*by all apearances* it was the cause of her
> death" (emphasis mine). This strictly speaking isn't fully true, since
> the gap in her face could have been caused by tomb robbers' actions

No, this was ruled out. It happened before
embalming.

> and this was the impression of archaeologists until the forensic
> analysis by Hawass's team.

Not all, no.

> I didn't read the Wiki article carefully at first, didn't notice the
> reference and so asked for it.

As per your usual, you opted to argue reality
instead of dealing with it...

You STILL haven't posted a word on topic...

> > You ask because a) Google broke b) you're an idiot
> > or c) because the goal is to shut down discussion.

> Asking a question

If this had been an isolated situation you might have
a point. But what characterizes you is this need to
challenge establish or even useless points, all part
of your efforts to shut down conversation.

Seriously, the number of times you froze on a self
evident fact, demanding that I first publish in a
peer reviewed journal before you would be capable
of moving forward... Sheesh!

> You are the one who is entirely off topic

I guess that's why you STILL haven't posted a word
on topic... troll.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119939895143

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> You could have provided the substance.

Oh, *Do* try to keep up! Where last we left, you
had admitted that I did! That the wiki article
I provided a link to included a cite.

...and then there's the fact that Google didn't
break, you never needed me to provide a goddamn
thing, that you were never without the resources
to provide yourself with what you PRETENDED that
you wanted.

AND, you *Still* haven't posted a word on the topic...



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119939895143

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <465fdf8d-2055-459a...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/27/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> I asked because you said "*by all apearances* it was the cause of her
>> death" (emphasis mine). This strictly speaking isn't fully true, since
>> the gap in her face could have been caused by tomb robbers' actions
>
> No, this was ruled out. It happened before
> embalming.

I agree.

>
>> and this was the impression of archaeologists until the forensic
>> analysis by Hawass's team.
>
> Not all, no.

So in at least some prominent works before 2010

>
>> I didn't read the Wiki article carefully at first, didn't notice the
>> reference and so asked for it.
>
> As per your usual, you opted to argue reality
> instead of dealing with it...
>
> You STILL haven't posted a word on topic...

You haven't read my posts carefully, but the short answer is there is
little to say.

>
>>> You ask because a) Google broke b) you're an idiot
>>> or c) because the goal is to shut down discussion.
>
>> Asking a question
>
> If this had been an isolated situation you might have
> a point. But what characterizes you is this need to
> challenge establish or even useless points, all part
> of your efforts to shut down conversation.

Take it as an isolated situation then.

>
> Seriously, the number of times you froze on a self
> evident fact, demanding that I first publish in a
> peer reviewed journal before you would be capable
> of moving forward... Sheesh!

It's when I find your "self evident fact" your fantasy.

>
>> You are the one who is entirely off topic
>
> I guess that's why you STILL haven't posted a word
> on topic... troll.

Read my posts.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <e9b1c96d-b449-4c2a...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/27/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> You could have provided the substance.
>
> Oh, *Do* try to keep up! Where last we left, you
> had admitted that I did! That the wiki article
> I provided a link to included a cite.

Mea culpa for not reading the Wiki article carefully, but it would have
been better to have cited Hawass, with Wiki only as a general
introduction.

>
> ...and then there's the fact that Google didn't
> break, you never needed me to provide a goddamn
> thing, that you were never without the resources
> to provide yourself with what you PRETENDED that
> you wanted.
>
> AND, you *Still* haven't posted a word on the topic...
>

Read my posts.

>
>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119939895143

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> It's when I find your "self evident fact" your fantasy.

As per your example here, troll.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119843277668

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> Mea culpa for not reading the Wiki article carefully, but it would have
> been better to have cited Hawass

No. Wrong. If you're ignorant on the subject, it
would be better if you don't comment or, failing
that, educate yourself. Period.

Again, you STILL haven't said a goddamn word on
the topic. You are what you post, and it ain't
relevancy.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119843277668

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <babd4ae2-4a14-4c6c...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/27/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> Mea culpa for not reading the Wiki article carefully, but it would have
>> been better to have cited Hawass
>
> No. Wrong. If you're ignorant on the subject, it

Wow! What's the point of posting information if only those who already
know it can participate.

> would be better if you don't comment or, failing
> that, educate yourself. Period.

Well, that's why I was asking about the reference!

>
> Again, you STILL haven't said a goddamn word on
> the topic. You are what you post, and it ain't
> relevancy.
>

Well, I listed two suspects of ordering the murder in the order of
likelyhood of guilt.

And YOU are what YOU post, and it ain't scholarship, and after the
first post, it ain't relevancy either.

Anyway, what's the point. everyone knows that JTEM just enjoys picking
up a fight and has to be the last one to post on the thread or
sub-thread.

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> Wow! What's the point of posting information if only those who already
> know it can participate.

The point WHICH I RAISED (so much for your reading
comprehension) is that the implications are ignored.
Always. I've never seen anyone explore them.

Though you've demonstrated ONCE AGAIN how much I'm
wasting my time with the likes of you...

It seems to me that Ay is not a good match for
culprit here. As near as I can figure, Tut was
crowned at the age of nine, but he would have
been around 6 when his mother died. Now, as the
only motive I can think of for Ay murdering her
would be power -- he needed her out of the way
so he could rule as regent in the place of the
child king -- that eliminates Ay as a suspect.

> > would be better if you don't comment or, failing
> > that, educate yourself. Period.
>
> Well, that's why I was asking about the reference!

Google it or shut up.

If you can't participate in a thread, DON'T.

> > Again, you STILL haven't said a goddamn word on
> > the topic. You are what you post, and it ain't
> > relevancy.

> And YOU are what YOU post, and it ain't scholarship, and after the
> first post, it ain't relevancy either.

You're a child. I called you on your bullshit and
you can't accept it like an adult...

"I'm what I post? No, you are! What are you? You're
what you post! I'm not what I post, you are!"

Grow up.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120044914843

[Wayne Brown]

On Wed, 27 May 2015 13:50:23 in article <5d669d2b-2c29-4f4f...@googlegroups.com> JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wayne Brown wrote:
>

>> It isn't that the topic isn't interesting, it's that your infantile
>> theatrics suck all the pleasure out of discussing it.

I restored the portion of the quote you deleted since your reply so
elegantly demonstrates its truth.

>
> ...which is why you have yet to post on
> the topic.
>
> You are what you do. You are a shit head.

Congratulations, you've used an insult I haven't heard anyone else use
since about the age of seven.

>
> -- --
>
> http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/119939895143

If you could learn to properly format a sig separator then your signature
would be removed automatically by other people's newsreaders, as it
should be.

[JTEM]

Wayne Brown wrote:

> I restored

So once again we see that you not only never
posted on the topic, but you still haven't.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120044914843

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <9a17117c-a6d3-4e4c...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/27/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> Wow! What's the point of posting information if only those who already
>> know it can participate.
>
> The point WHICH I RAISED (so much for your reading
> comprehension) is that the implications are ignored.
> Always. I've never seen anyone explore them.
>
> Though you've demonstrated ONCE AGAIN how much I'm
> wasting my time with the likes of you...
>
> It seems to me that Ay is not a good match for
> culprit here. As near as I can figure, Tut was
> crowned at the age of nine, but he would have
> been around 6 when his mother died. Now, as the

All this is very interesting and also bears for questions, which will
only lead to endless back and forth about my posting style.

So best I just investigate on my.

> only motive I can think of for Ay murdering her
> would be power -- he needed her out of the way

"Power" is a very powerful motive.

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> All this is very interesting and also bears for questions, which will
> only lead to endless back and forth about my posting style.

It's almost shocking how you're actually pulling your
bullshit -- the bullshit that characterizes you --
even as you pretend to be a victim because I called you
on your bullshit.

"Well I'm going to post a reply saying that I can't
reply because you're a wicked big meanie head who
attacks me for posting nothing but bullshit!"

HINT: If you can't reply, DON'T REPLY!

If you can reply, CUT THE SHIT AND JUST REPLY.

Seriously, grow the fuck up.





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120087665872

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <9a17117c-a6d3-4e4c...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 5/27/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> Wow! What's the point of posting information if only those who already
>> know it can participate.
>
> The point WHICH I RAISED (so much for your reading
> comprehension) is that the implications are ignored.
> Always. I've never seen anyone explore them.
>
> Though you've demonstrated ONCE AGAIN how much I'm
> wasting my time with the likes of you...
>
> It seems to me that Ay is not a good match for
> culprit here. As near as I can figure, Tut was
> crowned at the age of nine, but he would have
> been around 6 when his mother died. Now, as the

That is your estimate if YL is Meritaten, which is only one candidate,
and not favored by many.

Akhsenamun is generally accepted as the author of the letter to the
Hittites in which she indicates that she is "afraid" of her prospective
husband, and this seems to refer to Ay (her former "servant"). Those
who believe that Tutankhamun was murdered believe that this refers to
the murder of Tut. Perhaps she was refering to the brutal murder of YL,
her mother-in-law, and held Ay responsible for it.

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <mkp0c8$r25$1...@dont-email.me>, Yusuf B Gursey wrote on 6/4/2015:
> In <9a17117c-a6d3-4e4c...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote on
> 5/27/2015:
>> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>>
>>> Wow! What's the point of posting information if only those who already
>>> know it can participate.
>>
>> The point WHICH I RAISED (so much for your reading
>> comprehension) is that the implications are ignored.
>> Always. I've never seen anyone explore them.
>>
>> Though you've demonstrated ONCE AGAIN how much I'm
>> wasting my time with the likes of you...
>>
>> It seems to me that Ay is not a good match for
>> culprit here. As near as I can figure, Tut was
>> crowned at the age of nine, but he would have
>> been around 6 when his mother died. Now, as the
>
> That is your estimate if YL is Meritaten, which is only one candidate, and
> not favored by many.
>
> Akhsenamun is generally accepted as the author of the letter to the Hittites
> in which she indicates that she is "afraid" of her prospective husband, and
> this seems to refer to Ay (her former "servant"). Those who believe that
> Tutankhamun was murdered believe that this refers to the murder of Tut.
> Perhaps she was refering to the brutal murder of YL, her mother-in-law, and

Unless it was an accidental horse kick :)

Of course, both may be true, as she could have deliberately thrown in
harm's way of an agitated horse.


But these are just speculation until more data turns up.

[JTEM]

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> Akhsenamun is generally accepted as the author of
> the letter to the Hittites in which she indicates
> that she is "afraid" of her prospective husband,
> and this seems to refer to Ay (her former "servant").

Actually, I thought for the longest time that the
Younger Lady was probably Akhsenamun as her death
appeared unnatural, and most people already did
suggest she was "Disposed of." And the age seemed
almost right.

Tut was supposed to be 19, his sister/wife was
supposed to be around 22 at the time, maybe, and
then vanished only later, after being married off
to Ay. The Younger Lady is estimated by most to
have died around the age of 25. Given all the
wiggle room, she seemed like a strong candidate.

> Those who believe that Tutankhamun was murdered
> believe that this refers to the murder of Tut.
> Perhaps she was refering to the brutal murder of YL,
> her mother-in-law, and held Ay responsible for it.

Or both.

Everyone seems willing or perhaps eager to cast
Ay as a power-hungry sadist. There doesn't seem
to be much reason to doubt this.

But I despise going by the DNA evidence, DOUBLY
so with Hawass involved. Under the best of
circumstances DNA evidence can be open to
interpretation, in this case most of the testing
is a state secret.

I'm not even convinced that Smenkhare & Akhenaten
are two different people...





-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120673964523

[Yusuf B Gursey]

In <eed8df83-183d-47ae...@googlegroups.com>, JTEM wrote
on 6/4/2015:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>
>> Akhsenamun is generally accepted as the author of
>> the letter to the Hittites in which she indicates
>> that she is "afraid" of her prospective husband,
>> and this seems to refer to Ay (her former "servant").
>
> Actually, I thought for the longest time that the
> Younger Lady was probably Akhsenamun as her death
> appeared unnatural, and most people already did
> suggest she was "Disposed of." And the age seemed
> almost right.
>
> Tut was supposed to be 19, his sister/wife was
> supposed to be around 22 at the time, maybe, and
> then vanished only later, after being married off
> to Ay. The Younger Lady is estimated by most to
> have died around the age of 25. Given all the
> wiggle room, she seemed like a strong candidate.

But Younger Lady turns out not to be Akhsenamun

[JTEM]

"Yesterday's news, tomorrow!"

Yusuf B Gursey wrote:

> > Actually, I thought for the longest time that the
> > Younger Lady was probably Akhsenamun as her death
> > appeared unnatural, and most people already did
> > suggest she was "Disposed of." And the age seemed
> > almost right.
> >
> > Tut was supposed to be 19, his sister/wife was
> > supposed to be around 22 at the time, maybe, and
> > then vanished only later, after being married off
> > to Ay. The Younger Lady is estimated by most to
> > have died around the age of 25. Given all the
> > wiggle room, she seemed like a strong candidate.
>
> But Younger Lady turns out not to be Akhsenamun

Out of curiosity, how were you parsing "I thought for
the longest time" in the above?




-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/120698447948

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Oh so rich & successful JTEM wrote:

> Yusuf B Gursey wrote:
>

> > JTEM wrote on 5/22/2015:
> > > KV35YL is the "Young Lady" found in
> > > tomb KV35 -- hence, "KV35YL."
> > >
> > > Pretty sneaky, Sis...
> > >
> > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Younger_Lady
> > >
> > > What I find utterly fascinating about her is
> > > not only the fact that she appears certain to
> > > have given birth to the famous King Tut (yes,
> > > the mummy was the mommy of another mummy),
> > > but a very large chunk of her face is missing,

> > > and by all appearances it was the cause of
> > > her death.
>
> > Do you have a reference for this?
>
> Yes I have a whole archive on my web page. It's
> called "Google.com." The files are all hidden
> though, you won't see any if you visit my page.
> You'll have to enter my secret password first:
>
> "KV35YL"
>
> Got that?
>
> Go to my private webpage -- http://www.google.com --
> and then enter the secret password to gain access to
> all my files on the topic: "KV35YL"
>
> Got that? Are we clear on this?
>
> Good.
>
> Now no more talk about references. We wouldn't want
> my secret to get out...

Narcissists seek to close down conversations like this.
Asking for a cite when you've got a cite, and can
readily find all the information in the world online
(this is the internet, people) is not an attempt at
discussion, it's an attempt at ENDING discussions.

...narcissistic personalities want to control
conversations, so they seek to block any conversation
they can not control.

Google it.






-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179361161778

[Martin Edwards]

There is an interesting recent historical point here. When I was a
teenager in the 60s, narcissism was one of many psychosexual deviations
discussed and laughed about by smartass kids like me, but it was not
spotted everywhere. Today it has become a label for anyone behaving in
a way the speaker does not like.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Martin Edwards wrote:

> There is an interesting recent historical point here. When I was a
> teenager in the 60s, narcissism was one of many psychosexual deviations
> discussed and laughed about by smartass kids like me, but it was not
> spotted everywhere. Today it has become a label for anyone behaving in
> a way the speaker does not like.

No, there is definitely a range of symptoms/traits
and shutting down conversations is one of them.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/communication-success/201409/10-signs-youre-in-relationship-narcissist

Narcissists are in control, as far as they're concerned,
so they try to block conversations they don't run so
they can control them in the same manner that a workplace
shooter is "taking control" of the office.



-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179397312562

[Martin Edwards]

I agree with all that, but the term is also used indiscriminately by
people who are not aware of those definitions.

[Oh so rich & successful JTEM]

Martin Edwards wrote:

> I agree with all that, but the term is also used indiscriminately by
> people who are not aware of those definitions.

"Psycho" is far more abused than narcissist, and every
bit as inaccurately as you describe. The norm seems to
be to identify the precise OPPOSITE of psychotic behavior
as psychotic.

Psychos, for example, tend to be charming! Not obnoxious
assholes but charming! And they're manipulative, though
not in any way they think would be obvious... else it
wouldn't work, now would it? So you can say that psychos
hide. They conceal what they are. This is how they get
away with it.










-- --

http://jtem.tumblr.com/post/179464629923

[Martin Edwards]

Point. I think a lot of psychiatric terminology is flung around carelessly.

[nyi...@bellsouth.net]

NOTE to readers: I would like to know whether this was crossposted,
with the main discussion talking place outside of sci.bio.paleontology.
I use New Google Groups for posting, and it does not allow crossposting,
nor does it let readers know whether articles are crossposted. The
old Google Groups was much more helpful, at least at first.

A very recent example here in sci.bio.paleontology is that of
a highly dishonest person posting under the byline "Oxyaena"
has accused a number of people of Dunning-Kruger effect.
But Oxyaena herself is by far the person who most displays
this effect.

This kind of behavior is often termed "Projection" -- another
much abused psychological term -- but I prefer a description
of a dirty debating tactic/strategy which gets at the probable
motive in many cases, including that of Oxyaena:

The Pre-emptive Peremptory Ploy

This can be a one-shot thing or it can be frequently employed for
a long time until the payoff comes. Here is a description of
the simplest form of it.

The preliminary step(s) consist[s] of making a carefully chosen,
unsupported (and usually unsupportable) accusation about a person--
call him/her X -- of which the accuser is (or is very likely to be)
grossly guilty.

The payoff comes when the grossly guilty party earns the accusation,
Person X points it out, and then the accuser claims that Person X is
indulging in a Pee Wee Hermanism, or projecting, or hitting some high
score on "the irony meter". [Back in the 90's it was more commonly
called the "the irony-o-meter".]


Peter Nyikos