Rohl (Dave)

Dave Washburn dwashbur at
Sun Sep 26 23:38:54 EDT 1999

> >Ian, I never said a word about Rameses II.  You're the one who 
> >keeps bringing him up.  If you had bothered to read my original 
> >post on this topic, you would have seen that I specifically said I 
> >wasn't sure about some of his treatments of individual persons, but 
> >that I thought he made his case for the need to restructure the 
> >Third Intermediate Period.  
> Dave,
> I'm now quite at a loss to understand what it is exactly about Rohl's work
> on the restructuring of the Third Intermediate Period that remains for you
> to give as noteworthy. You seem to have discarded more than anyone I've
> come across who is willing to speak about the stuff, so much so that it is
> totally unclear what you actually do support and your further posts have
> not clarified the situation at all, merely saying what it is you don't like
> or don't support or didn't say, what made you laugh, what made you tired,
> but absolutely nothing of any substance.

Ian, I have no idea what you're actually reading but it's clear you're 
not reading my posts.  I haven't said that I discarded anything.  
This is ridiculous.  You reject Rohl without even reading him (and 
then have the brass to accuse me of depending on secondary 
sources!), you put words in my mouth that I never even implied, 
you have your mind made up and really don't care to cloud it by 
actually investigating the situation.  You complain that I keep falling 
back on "Read the book."  Yes I do, and I make no apologies for it. 
If you haven't actually seen what he says, you have no idea what 
you're talking about.  If you don't even bother to read the material 
that you are fussing about so much, why should anybody take you 
seriously?  You don't have any idea what the arguments are for the 
proposed restructuring of the Third Intermediate Period, and you 
don't want to know because you might actually have to rethink 
some things and you don't want to do that.  You complain that I 
don't "say anything of substance," but the fact is that you would be 
unable to discuss anything of substance because you haven't even 
bothered to look at the material.  You're trying to stack the deck, 
Ian.  You want to be able to discuss what you consider of 
substance, but you don't want to deal with the actual evidence 
because you won't go read it.  You called my comment about 
intellectual honesty ad hominem, but the truth is that this is what 
is required in this situation because you refuse to level the playing 
field by taking an honest look at the actual source of the 
discussion.  If that's ad hominem, so be it.  This will be my last 
response to you on this subject, because I think it's clear from 
other responses that all can see how absurd your position is.

Dave Washburn
"Ich veranlassenarbeitenworken mein Mojo."

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list