Can't agree more. I suggest leaving this topic to desktop alone now.Alec124c41 wrote:Old saying: Don't argue with fools or madmen.
Desktop reminds me of a charming old gentlmen I met once while on a Nile cruise. He had once been something high up in the Carter administration, and had been studying Ancient Egypt exhaustively since. I knew little of the subject, I'm afraid to admit, so I listened with great interest to his comment, and the stories he told.
This was a guided tour, and the guide, a thoroughly knowledgable chap, would give a brief lecture followed by a question and answer session. My friend was prominent in the latter, and it became obvious to me that he had a pet theory of the timing of the classic period in Egyptian history, and the events that his theory showed in a certain light were not at all in accord with the explanation the tour guide was giving.
We talked about this over several evenings and glasses of red, until the tour finished or not. The ex-administrator had indeed formulated his own theory, drawn from numerous sources - he was a thoroughly scholarly gent. It was clear, too, that if he were right, the Egyptian historians had a lot of thinking to do. There was a problem, though, which I brought on early on, that of carbon dating.
He was well aware of this, and went through all the known problems of carbon dating, including it's famous inaccuracy. However, and I'll freely admit to not being an expert, it did mean that if the carbon dating used by archaeologists were correct, then his theories were questionable, if not in incorrect.
Now, I do not know to this day whether my friend's theories had substance or not, although they made for enjoyable evenings as the three of us (the tour guide had become interested and joined our little group) debated all manner of topics as the Nile floated gently by. I did and do think, however, that the dating question needed resolution, and that all the evidence was on the side of conventional wisdom. I feel such is the case now. Desktop, who I picture in the white safari suit of my friend, Nikon round his neck, leaning forward over the deck rails to better devour the sights and sounds, needs to prove that humans can hear above the accepted norms, that this ability can be taught, that age apparently causes less deterioration if you're a super listener, and lastly that having 'golden ears' is directly related to the ability to hear above the normal frequency range of human hearing. Until he does, I'm afraid the verdict is always going to be less than positive.