NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/sci/archaeol/2852

Internet Message Format | 1992-11-20 | 4.0 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!west.West.Sun.COM!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!texsun!digi!gpalo
From: [e-mail] (Gerry Palo)
Newsgroups: sci.archaeology
Subject: Re: Nov 3rd NOVA on pyramids
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 20 Nov 92 16:36:08 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: DSC Communications Corp, Plano, TX
Lines: 73

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Iain Odlin) writes:
>
>>> ...during the whole bloody reign of Khufu...
>>
>>  ...nothing indicates Khufu's reign was bloody...
>
>  "Bloody" is a swear word, most frequently used in Great Britain.  Replace
>  "bloody" with "fucking" in the gentleman's post and all shall be clear.
>
>  Now:  Something I have to get off my chest...
>
>  Gerry:  Put simply, you are one frighteningly ill-informed individual.  Some-
>  thing tells me that it would avail me nothing to even attempt to address
>  the inaccuracies in your earlier postings about pyramids.  All I ask is that
>  you go check out PRIMARY sources about what was found in what pyramid and
>  what is *known* (not surmised) about pyramids.  Facts tend to get in the way
>  of fantastic theories, so tabloids and tabloid-"scientists" don't use them.
>  Neither, apparently, does the gullible public...
>
>  Now, I know you say you don't read "pseudo-scientific" things, but *nothing*
>  you have posted indicates anything else.  "No traces of mummies" have ever
>  been found?  Never answering a question with more than a vague, "I'll only
>  tell you that they're places of initiation, but if I say more... Well, you
>  know"???
>
>  Again, I beseech you to actually look up some *facts*.  Chances are slight
>  that you will, but I feel I must ask.
>--
> --------------------------------- Iain Odlin ---------------------------------
>                  10 Crosby Street, Level 3, Portland ME 04103
>                                 [e-mail]
> ----------------- "The living are just the dead on holiday." -----------------

Iain, your logic renders me speechless.  Shall we all go home now?

I offered the assertion about initiation places as an immediate
reply to a direct question, confessing that it would raise more
questions than it answered.  Clearly, if what I said is true
it would challenge much traditionally accepted scholarly opinion
about the pyramids and about man himself during this period. But
a real discussion of these implications can't be done in an
atmosphere of flames. I am not sure how much progress we can
make on this question of the use of the pyramids as places of
initiation.  We may or may not be able to find a common starting
ground, but in a high temperature setting no progress at all
is possible.

Your post crossed a couple of others having to do with keeping
personal inuendo out of it.  I hope we can continue the discussion
amicably on the trust that each party is a reasonable person with
his or her own point of view.

Let's also remember that none of us is, as far as I know, setting
himself up as an infallible authority, and I suspect that a large
number of us, if not all of us, have arrived at our points of view
not as professionals in the field but based on a variety of life
experiences and readings.  No one so far seems to be even an
egyptologyst, even one whose assumptions about the pyramids are
being challenged. So let's take it easy on the commands to go
look up "some" facts.  We are all fallible and we all know
something too.  And we do the best we can to keep up on our
scholarly references.

I would also suggest that we hold judgement on what is scientific
and what is pseudo-scientific.  I have my own ideas about that,
and they probably coincide largely with yours and everyone elses,
but there may be points where our sets don't coincide.  Accusing
someone of advocating pseudo-science is really a question begging
red herring.

However, I am glad you could get it off your chest.

Gerry Palo ([e-mail])