Ritner's Questionable Reading of 'Isis'

[sunstoned]

9 hours ago, gav said:

Lovely, whose sock puppet are you? coming out swinging on your first post.

When you can't counter the argument, then go for the ad hominem.  Real classy. 

[gav]

 

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

11 hours ago, gav said:

Which is it? are you a Ritner apologist, or a Gee and Muhlestein hater? or simply both?

Or neither.  I love everyone, man.  and pretty much advocate for everyone.  I want to see people succeed.  Feel bad these two apologists seem so uncomfortable with addressing the issues.  

That is unfortunately not how it appears...

[gav]

3 hours ago, sunstoned said:

When you can't counter the argument, then go for the ad hominem.  Real classy. 

Not an ad hominem, a genuine question...

I tend to notice style and form and this also matches a style and form I have seen on this board, which is quite unique, so it's not a baseless question.

Edited August 18, 2020 by gav

[aussieguy55]

My FB friend says "

The only other possibility is Hathor. Toward the time that this was produced (Ptolmeic/Roman times) Hathor and Isis had more or less fused together. Clearly it's Isis in some form.They may be able to say the hieroglyphs identifying her are illegible, but that's Isis/Hathor.The scene is without question pagan Egyptian funerary document. Without question Isis, Osiris, Maat, Hor (the deceased) Anubis.

But if anyone is not familiar with Egyptian funerary scenes they could easily "muddy the waters enough"

[Robert J Anderson]

1 hour ago, gav said:

Not an ad hominem, a genuine question...

I tend to notice style and form and this also matches a style and form I have seen on this board, which is quite unique, so it's not a baseless question.

I don't think it matters if someone is using a sock puppet.  The internet is full of such things and one must expect it to occur.  What matters is the content of the post.

[gav]

9 minutes ago, aussieguy55 said:

My FB friend says "

Are you sure they are a "friend"?

Experts should deliver expertise, not pronounce speculations or even educated guesses as fact where things are not clear and proclaim them to be clear.

[gav]

13 minutes ago, Robert J Anderson said:

2 hours ago, gav said:

Not an ad hominem, a genuine question...

I tend to notice style and form and this also matches a style and form I have seen on this board, which is quite unique, so it's not a baseless question.

I don't think it matters if someone is using a sock puppet.  The internet is full of such things and one must expect it to occur.  What matters is the content of the post.

I think it does matter, you are right that the internet is full of such things but we have also learned from this some of the motives behind such antics. What matters before the content of the post is why the need to resort to sock puppetry?

[gav]

17 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What would be really useful is if Gee and Muhlestein would agree to actually engage on these matters, then they too could point out any errors Ritner might be making.  Then we all could benefit.  As it is now, though, they simply want to leave it in a state of talking past each other.  My suspicion is, Gee and Muhlestein like that because it keeps them from feeling like they have to answer for their claims.  

Also, it might be that Ritner has a legitimate reason for his claims, Gee and Muhlestein know that and have no interest in trying to address him...well because they are the ones making outlandish claims, as Ritner has pointed out.  

I'm not convinced why they should knowingly want to engage in what will clearly be a mud slinging contest.

[stemelbow]

5 hours ago, gav said:

I'm not convinced why they should knowingly want to engage in what will clearly be a mud slinging contest.

Alright, but again, that's simply too cynical of a view.  I think they all can behave themselves just fine.  Or would you say Gee and Muhlestein would act like grumpy children or something?  

Quote

That is unfortunately not how it appears...

Look with a little more cheer in your heart, then perhaps you won't view people with that cynical eye.  I don't know.  Might not work.  But its worth a try.

Quote

Are you sure they are a "friend"?

Experts should deliver expertise, not pronounce speculations or even educated guesses as fact where things are not clear and proclaim them to be clear.

What makes you think that this expert analysis is anything but fact?  

Edited August 18, 2020 by stemelbow