Forum

Peering into the Strawman / names *LINK*
In Response To: Peering into the Chasm ()

>CP:[...]It's tough to find people who are knowledgeable enough to critique an alternative idea and are willing to actually do it. Your peers typically are also your rivals,...

-M: Yes, but my system MANDATES that one positively endorses at least two other peers.

>CP:...as was the case for Ray Davis. And for mainstream academics the independent researcher is the enemy.

-M: Yes, which is why the Independents need to unify. Remember what I suggested: *The goal is to challenge entrenched status-quo opinion.*

How is this best accomplished? With fragmented independent authors, or with an identifyable group of enthusiasts who are interested in identifying BOTH the truth, and identifying those that are effective in identifying the truth.

>CP: These are ignored if possible, and if not, then they receive only polemics not objective reviews. I have found only one Egyptologist, Daniel Kolos (www.horemheb.com) of Canada, who has been willing to even half-heartedly look at my work, and that after much pestering on my part.

-M: I know about this problem, and this is why I have created my system.

>CP: I was contacted last year by someone proposing to make a very similar venue as you propose for alternative researchers. It was to be web based and required a subscription to receive articles, etc. that they were to produce. I told them it wouldn't work for me. Wish I could remember the URL, if it still exists, so I could share it with you.

-M: OK.

>CP: If I myself were a peer reviewer of Ralph Ellis,...

-M: You are a peer-reviewer of him - I have seen a critique of an idea about Hannurabi. I have also seen you respond to his idea about Mt.Sinai being the Great Pyramid. Interesting. :-)

>CP:...or others, it would be very difficult for me to be objective as well. I am highly committed to my own work and have a natural bias.

-M: Of course you are biased. Everyone is. But I trust your critiques of Ellis and others, more than my own, because you are more familiar with the material.

>CP: Sorry to be so negative. Possibly with enough time, money, influence, and the right approach, it could work. Or possibly something already exists that is close to being useful, and you could just tap into that and encourage it in the right direction.

-M: As with most people who are new to my idea, you seem to be negative, not about my idea, but negative about a mental strawman bearing a vague resemblance to my idea.

My idea does not require time, nor money, nor influence. It is ready now. It requires only that a *name* such as yourself, give other *names*. Osman? Rohl? Ellis? Hancock? A.Collins?

Who are your FAVORITE? Who do you TRUST the most? Which enthusiests here(domainofman) do you trust the most?

My technique finds a locus of trust within a community.(Please forget any preconcieved ideas about 'peer-review'.)

shanti
Mark, Seattle