AlanF

With reference to ScholarJW's complete buggering of the evidence leading to the Watchtower's acceptance of 538 BCE as the date of Cyrus' 1st year, Arauna said: This is a well known, reasonable speculation not proven by any clear evidence. Do you need references in Watchtower publications? "Later"? Nonsense. According to contemporary business tablets, Cyrus was viewed as having acceded the throne as early as October 10, 539 BCE in Sippar, a city near Babylon that Cyrus took just two days before conquering Babylon. See Parker and Dubberstein, page 14. On page 14, P&D lists six tablets as evidence for the beginning of Cyrus' accession year. Therefore, irrespective of whether or when Darius the Mede was installed as a satrap over Babylon, Cyrus was still viewed as having been installed as king on Nisan 1, 538 BCE, according to hundreds of business tablets and other contemporary records. And as I have carefully explained -- and you and your idiot compatriot have ignored -- this was almost certainly done on or about Nisan 1, 538 BCE in connection with the Akitu Festival and Cyrus' inauguration. Irrelevant to the chronology. Where have I heard that before? Of course. You're impressed only by Watchtower publications and conspiracy theories. Nonsense. Virtually all intelligent people not part of the conspiracy theory community can see such nonsense for what it is. No different in principle from Flat-Earthism, Young-Earth Creationism, etc. So what? You obviously recheck using bogus sources. I guess the entire world of solid science has also fallen. A standard trope of conspiracy theories. Slander will get you everywhere with your fellow conspiracy theorists. LOL! Tell me again now: How did 3 million Israelites wander the Sinai wilderness for 40 years without leaving even bits of poop as evidence? How can the Bible's "God of love" have created a world of incredible pain and suffering in the animal world lasting more than half a billion years? Doesn't 'creation' itself tell you that this "God" does not exist?

Let me get this straight: YOU, an uneducated, verified Watchtower drone and conspiracy theorist, presume to lecture someone about such things? LOL!

You need to look in your mirror. And try to convince your pathologically lying compatriot ScholarJW to change his ways. Your pathologically lying, moronic compatriot ScholarJW disagrees. Naturally, he's far too dishonest to explain what he actually believes -- something vaguely connected with Darius the Mede, apparently -- but he certainly disagrees with the Insight book's dating of Cyrus' reign. You don't believe me? Read his posts above. Nope. Scholars are nearly unanimous that most of Israel was inhabited by the poorest of the poor during that time. After all, Nebuchadnezzar wanted ALL of his conquered territories to be productive for Babylon's benefit, agriculturally and otherwise. Uh huh. Yet you and your Watchtower Mommy still cannot explain how some 3 million Israelites wandering around Sinai for 40 years could leave not a trace -- not even buried poop.

That's because this moron hasn't got two brain cells to rub together.

This supremely pathological liar's response is exactly as I predicted: Now, many readers will be amused at the way ScholarJW demonstrates the sins described and illustrated above.

ScholarJW has now, for at least 20 years in the time I've dealt with him on JW-related forums, proved himself to be a truly pathological liar, on the order of current U.S. President Donald Trump. Various commentators have observed that it's easy to tell when Trump is lying -- his mouth is moving. It's similar with ScholarJW. The bulk of what he posts on forums such as this is either a flat-out lie, or is a deliberate misrepresentation of something. He has actually misrepresented the Bible itself over these past 20 years. He often tries to make some dishonest claim, is proven to have lied, and then completely ignores that proof, thus compounding his lie because he has, by failing to admit it, doubled down on it. So how does one tell when ScholarJW is lying? He's typing on his keyboard. Below I present some examples of these failings, which are mostly deliberate. Recently, in the thread "Archaeological Evidence for 607 BCE", ScholarJW referred to a couple of academic papers presented by scholars Steven M. Bryan and Jeffrey Niles that considered the implications of "the 70 years" of Jeremiah (Jer. 25:11, 29:10, etc.). He made some outrageous claims for these papers, which amounted to claiming that these secular scholars actually supported Watchtower chronology and the summaries of that chronology that ScholarJW usually makes. His claims are false, of course, because no normal scholars support Watchtower chronology. His basic claim can be read here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-149440 . Here is an excerpt: << Recent scholarship confirms the simple basic fact that the Jewish Exile ended not with the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE but with the return of the Jews from Babylon under Cyrus' Decree following the prediction of Jeremiah's prophecy of 70 years. This viewpoint of matters is thematic in an article by Steven M Bryan to wit "The Reception of Jeremiah's Prediction of a Seventy-Year Exile' in JBL, vol.137, no.1, 2018, pp.107-26. This recent scholarship is a devastating to the COJ interpretation of the 70 years wholly based on servitude to the Babylonian power ending in 539 BCE. Further, other scholarship in the form of a Master of Theology Thesis for the Dallas Theological Seminary, 2012 vindicates the said's scholars view that the 70 years was a period of SERVITUDE-DESOLATION-EXILE as argued on many forums over the last decades. Scholar disagrees with many points in this thesis but its essential theme is well received based on these three principal elements which are equated in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated. >> This excerpt contains ScholarJW's basic lie about "servitude-desolation-exile": "these three principal elements ... are equated". But he is so intent on promoting this lie that in the same sentence he refutes his own claim of support: "... in disagreement with the author's view that these were not equated". ScholarJW seems to think that merely because an author discusses the concepts of servitude, desolation and exile in connection with Jeremiah's 70 years, he supports whatever ScholarJW and the Watchtower Society claim. Now of course, dozens of scholars for two millennia have discussed all manner of details about exactly what Jeremiah's 70 years meant in the Bible passages that mention them, and in the many writings in the some 700 years from the beginning of the Babylonian hegemony over the Middle East in 609 BCE down through Josephus' writings in the early 1st century CE. Therefore, ScholarJW's claims are outrageous lies on their face. Furthermore, ScholarJW's claim of scholarly support for his and the Watchtower's views is not new. He has lied many times these past 20 years in this way, on various online forums, and has generally been called out on the lies. Naturally, as a pathological Trumpian liar, he has never admitted to lying, nor has he retracted his false claims. When I read ScholarJW's obviously false claims, I replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-149446 😞 << I have not read that article, but I have no doubt that, as with virtually all articles you've cited in support of your views, it will turn out actually to debunk those views. Would you like to clarify now, before I read the article and point out where you've mucked it up? >> After that, I requested that ScholarJW email me copies of the articles, since that would be the quickest way for me to read the material. But in the finest tradition of Trumpian/ScholarJWian obscurantism, he refused. Ultimately, a couple of months later, I obtained the articles and began posting debunkings of his trash. See https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151323 and https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/12/?tab=comments#comment-151324 for my initial lengthy debunkings. ScholarJW's reply was typically garbled and full of lies, without any real evidence of anything. He seems to think that merely denying a fact or an argument makes it disappear. JW Insider soon called out ScholarJW's lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88083-archaeological-evidence-for-607-bce/page/13/?tab=comments#comment-151338 😞 << Again, @scholar JW, you either have not read the paper in question, or you are not honest. Perhaps, as TTH implies, you are just showing that "people see what they want to see." (In which case, that would be evidence that you are no "scholar.") >> In any case, this is not the first time the 70 years is acknowledged to have three principal elements: servitude, captivity/exile, and desolation of the land. Even if you never read past the introductory summary, you would have seen how you have made a false claim here. His very reason for writing is that he SEPARATES all these three ideas into DIFFERENT periods. The terms servitude, captivity, and desolation receive examination. Servitude refers to the period in which Judah and the surrounding nations would submit to the dominion of Babylon. This thesis proposes that the servitude lasted from 609 to 539 BC. Captivity resulted from the seventy-year period of Babylonian servitude, but the two must not be equated. Several captivities resulted in Babylon’s invasion of Judah and ended with the decree of Cyrus in 538 BC. Desolation also resulted from the period of servitude, but must not be equated with it. This refers to the period of destruction that followed the fall of Jerusalem in 586 BC and lasted until the construction of the temple in 515 BC. I agree that the period of servitude would be about from 609 to 539, although I wouldn't haggle over a couple years on either side. >> And of course, ScholarJW replied to this with his usual garbled, circular, unevidenced, question-begging 'arguments' and, mostly, flat-out lies. Many more posts along these lines were made in that thread, but I want to move on to the meat of this post in the present thread "SECULAR EVIDENCE and NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, etc.)". It so happened that the dishonest 'research' of Norwegian JW apologist Rolf Furuli was discussed. After some discussion ScholarJW again falsely invoked support for his claims from scholars Bryan and Niles, and said this ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/7/?tab=comments#comment-152102 😞 << You say that Furuli's research is debunked but this is only by those with bias to NB Chronology whom regard it as a sacred cow.- not to be critical of it. It is a nonsense to say that WT interpretations are demonstrably wrong when one only has to compare such interpretations with Bible commentaries and published journals and these show otherwise or at least some tangents of agreement as I have pointed out over the years. the most recent example is Nile's thesis that the 70 years related to three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics. >> Note the flat-out lie: Niles' thesis is a "tangent of agreement" (whatever that means) that the 70 years are related to "three major elements ignored by COJ and most if not all other scholars/critics." I had pointed out several times before that COJ (Carl Olof Jonsson) and many other scholars discussed these matters plenty of times during the past two millennia, but ScholarJW doubled down on his lie. I then stated ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152113 😞 << COJ did NOT ignore such things. Do you want me to quote his earliest published book? And of course, plenty of other scholars have discussed such things, sometimes at length, sometimes as side notes. So what? None of those writings in any way lends support to your claims that they support the "607 chronology". >> ScholarJW replied ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/8/?tab=comments#comment-152118 😞 << COJ did no such thing and neither has any other scholar for it is only for the first time that these three concepts have been related to the 70 years. >> To refute that lie I quoted COJ's first version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/9/?tab=comments#comment-152132 😞 <<<< Of course he did. Note his discussion in The Gentile Times Reconsidered, version 1, 1983, pp. 92-93: << . . . the nations that that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nation that refused to serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. This fate at last befell Judah after about eighteen years of servitude. . . The devastation or desolation, though, is nowhere stated to have lasted for seventy years. Other nations, too, that refused to accept the Babylonian yoke, were punished, cities were ruined, and captives were brought to Babylon. . . That the seventy years refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy, and not to the period of Jerusalem's desolation, reckoned from its destruction in Nebuchadnezzar's eighteenth year, is also confirmed by verse 12 of Jeremiah 25: . . . All will agree that this began to be fulfilled when Babylon fell to Cyrus' army in 539 B.C.E. At that time the seventy years had "been fulfilled," according to Jeremiah's prophecy. Did the Jewish captivity end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the desolation of Jerusalem end in 539 B.C.E.? No! Did the Babylonian supremacy and the servitude to the Babylonian king end that year? Yes! As the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., they clearly refer, not to the captivity or the desolation, but to the servitude. >> Read it and weep, Neil. >>>> Naturally, ScholarJW completely ignored COJ's exposition. Rather, he tried his usual trick of sidestepping by posing a completely irrelevant 'problem' ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/11/?tab=comments#comment-152184 😞 << Seeing that you have boasted how smart you are and have written a contrived paper on the 538/537 BCE debate could you answer the following question: Would you give the precise date for the beginning and ending of Cyrus' first full regnal year expressed in terms of the Babylonian/Jewish Calendar and in both the Julian, Gregorian calendars? >> Of course, all of that (aside from the trivial and irrelevant conversion from Julian to Gregorian calendar dates) was covered in my very paper that ScholarJW labeled "contrived", which proves that his tactic here is to sidestep facts he cannot refute. JW Insider perfectly described ScholarJW's sidestepping tactic ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152284 😞 << But the tactic I see that I'm wondering about is one I see you've tried about 20 times, at least. Near the end of your time of involvement on a thread, you start to make jobs for other people. You ask them to go look up something for you. Or you ask them to answer a specific question, often not much related to the issue. And then you often just declare yourself the winner and bow out. >> And of course, ScholarJW quickly replied with yet another set of lies: << Rubbish, Scholar never runs away but stands firm. I ask questions to show that these so-called experts cannot answer immediate and simple questions on Chronology only known or stated by WT scholars???? Recent example was that Alan F proudly displays his paper refuting 537 BCE but when asked a simple question in relation to the fundamental timing of the first year of Cyrus then the cat got his tongue, he was struck dumb. !!!! >> Which claims are entirely garbage because the answer to his 'question' was trivial, and known to all competent participants in this thread -- which ScholarJW knows perfectly well. And of course, several pages on I did answer part of his question, partly by citing the Insight book and partly with quotations from scholarly publications, along with a suggestion that, if he really wanted to know more, he could easily find the answers on several websites. Clearly then, ScholarJW thinks we are all so dumb as to not understand his dishonest tactics of sidestepping complete debunkings of his lies. After the above debunkings, ScholarJW again doubled down on his lies ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/page/16/?tab=comments#comment-152286 😞 << The said scholar has on the previous forum has made three contributions to the scholarship of Chronology: 1. The first scholar to introduce the role of 'Methodology' as a tool for Chronology as later advocated by Rodger Young 2. The first scholar to introduce into scholarship the three cardinal concepts of the 70 years of Jeremiah-SERVITUDE-EXILE-DESOLATION now observed by Niles in his Thesis. >> Point 1. is nonsense because scholars have used various "Methodologies" for centuries. Point 2. is simply false, as shown by my above quotation of COJ's 1983 version of The Gentile Times Reconsidered. I could easily have quoted dozens of other scholarly works, but I'm not going to spend time debunking a lie shown up as a lie by just one quotation. Most JW apologists are neither interested nor competent enough to evaluate much of the technical information presented in this thread. But the above sequence should be completely clear to anyone not entirely braindead. ScholarJW consistently lies, misrepresents scholars and opponents, ignores scholars he disagrees with, refuses to quote sources, even the Bible itself, often gives no references to claimed sources or refuses to provide links or computer copies, sidesteps arguments and debunkings in every possible way, almost never admits error, almost never concedes a point, and generally commits about every sin possible in the world of scholars. In short, ScholarJW is no more a scholar than he is a Klingon. Now, many readers will be amused at the way ScholarJW demonstrates the sins described and illustrated above.

Yes indeed, and it accepts that reckoning. It must, because without it, the Watchtower cannot use 539 as an anchor date. Such a complete moron! So what? What a master of irony you are!

I think we're dealing with a computerized gibberish generator here.

Nyah nyah nyah nyah, nyaaah nyah!

More gibberish.

Gibberish as usual.

Srecko Sostar said: Exactly. Going from a specific number to a foggy number is NOT a change in their teaching. The foggy number is fully consistent with the old specific number. It was done, as I explained, to deceive the JW rank and file. Precisely. Liars and cowards, all of them. The following is the latest WTS statement on the specific length of the "creative days", from the January 1, 1987 Watchtower, p. 30: << a study of the fulfillment of Bible prophecy and of our location in the stream of time strongly indicate that each of the creative days (Genesis, chapter 1) is 7,000 years long. It is understood that Christ’s reign of a thousand years will bring to a close God’s 7,000-year ‘rest day,’ the last ‘day’ of the creative week. (Revelation 20:6; Genesis 2:2, 3) Based on this reasoning, the entire creative week would be 49,000 years long. >>

Forgot to mention: Insight mentions but ignores the reign of Darius, stating on page 453: << As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E. >> Exactly what I've stated.

Yeah, unfortunately I'm a fairly typical American in that, except that I speak very broken Spanish and even more broken French. Very occasionally. But you must admit that my point is right. Speaking clearly was supposed to be goal of the old Kingdom Ministry School, right?

Still no evidence presented. You're dismissed.

Already explained.

Obviously you disagree with the dates given in the Insight book. Your lookout. You're so incredibly stupid that you can't even manage to explain your claim about Darius the Mede. All you can manage is to throw a piece of disembodied information out there to see if sticks -- much like throwing bits of poopy underwear against a wall to see what sticks. One of your usual techniques of "argument".

No evidence presented; none needed to dismiss.

Already explained.

Srecko Sostar said: No it is not. You said: << official teachings was changed from: 1 Creation Day is 7000 years, to 1 Creation Day is unknown period. >> Please supply references to where such an official change in teaching was made in Watchtower literature. In actuality, JWs younger than about 45 years have little or no knowledge of the old teachings. The Society simply stopped talking about such, but it remains on the books. That way, old JWs won't get alarmed by such a big change, and younger ones remain clueless and can believe what they want. It's more like: they didn't want to rock the boat with older JWs. Right. Which is why I harp on this issue as opportunity arises. Not really. What seems to have happened, back around 1980, was that certain WTS writers realized that the crap they had been peddling about their idea that there were no ice ages, but that most evidence for a recent global ice age was really evidence for Noah's Flood, actually came from the Young-Earth Creationists. A couple of years into the 1980s saw the WTS explicitly declare that Young-Earth Creationism was crap, so it stands to reason that they dumped their old ideas on YEC "flood geology". I doubt that this had anything to do with new writers, but was spearheaded by one Harry Peloyan, a long-time Bethelite who eventually became Editor-in-Chief of Awake! magazine. Harry was no dope, but was quite anti-science wherever standard science contradicted Watchtower tradition. I guess hanging on to Young-Earth Creationist nonsense was too much, even for him.

Well, rudimentary science, at least. True. So what? All scientists worth their salt know that their opinions on subjects outside their area of expertise is of no more value than those of anyone else. On the other hand, the opinions of non-scientists who think to challenge the experts are usually worthless. Who would you rather have do brain surgery on you? Some random dodo? Or a certified brain surgeon? On this forum you've shown quite the opposite. You've shown that the only 'science' you know comes exclusively from Watchtower publications. Which is dangerous, because such publications have stated that they have given JWs such a good education that JWs can be called "Bible scholars". This results in an extremely bad case of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Nonsense. No panic at all. Rather than reading actual scientifically valid material, all you've read is Creationist claptrap. There's a lot of that, and most of it is crap. Not just crap, but crap designed to promote the idea that the universe was created some 6,000 years ago. Sure, based on Young-Earth Creationist pseudo-science. You don't seem to realize that Qatar is quite secular for a Muslim society. So far as I can see, they're interested in empirical evidence for stuff. While the fanatical wing of Islam is at least as bad as American Young-Earth Creationists, that doesn't seem to characterize Qatar. What's your point? You're dancing to the Watchtower's tune -- lumping all non-JWs into one big, nasty pile. Do you realize how stupid that is? LOL! Pure Watchtower-ism along with conspiracy-theory-ism. It does if they want to have longer than a five-year career. They have colleagues eager to knock down such nonsense. What happened to "cold fusion" in the late 1980s? So what? Most of these scholars are nowhere nearly as educated in the hard sciences as they ought to be. A great many are highly motivated by their religious views, and are not to be trusted without much verification. Can you supply links to where you got your information on this? What I've found is basically nothing more than that a pillar was found in Jerusalem that certain Christian scholars decided was connected to Melchizedek, but such pillars don't come with theology lessons attached. What evidence? Nonsense. Such evidence is NOT ignored. The very fact that you know about it is proof. On the other hand, Christian Fundamentalists completely ignore far more important facts. Like the fact that ZERO evidence has been found of the supposed 40-year sojourn of 2.5 million+ Israelites in Sinai. What? Nearly three million Jews could wander in a small desert area for 40 years and leave NO evidence? Not even piles of buried poop? Certain scholars have tried to rationalize the lack of evidence for the Sojourn by saying that the traditional translation of certain numbers from Hebrew is wrong: numbers concerning the Exodus that traditionally speak of "thousands" really mean something far smaller, so that the reference to "600,000 men" of military age that left Egypt really means perhaps 10,000. But even that fails to explain the complete lack of evidence in Sinai. What does any of that have to do with the topic of this thread? You keep going off on tangents. Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist.

Largely the usual nonsense and claptrap. And of course, zero evidence is presented, so none is needed to dismiss.

We're watching a couple of morons here trying to discuss what ScholarJW thinks is rocket science. I've answered all of your challenges, Arauna. You're a blatant liar. The fact that you, but especially Cesar Chavez, have serious problems with English is YOUR problem, not mine. Clear language is necessary for clear communication. Of course, since Watchtower publications for several decades have been written in 3rd grade level English, y'all wouldn't know that.

Arauna said: Let's try this again. The following dates are taken from Parker and Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology -- 626 B.C. - A.D. 75, Brown University Press, 1956; Wipf & Stock Publishers, Eugene, Oregon), along with a Julian date calculator website ( https://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1227779487 ). All dates are given by the usual Julian calendar. The Insight book (Vol. 1, p. 453) clearly admits that Cyrus' official accession year was Nisan 1, 539 BCE through Addaru 30, 538 BCE, and his official FIRST year was Nisan 1, 538 BCE through Addaru 30, 537 BCE. The Persians under Cyrus conquered the city of Sippar, near Babylon, on October 10, 539, conquered Babylon on October 12, 539, and Cyrus entered Babylon on October 29. Tablets dating to Cyrus' accession year, dating to October 10 through January 14, 538, are listed in P&D (p. 14). Therefore it was evident to all inhabitants of Babylon not later than October 29 that Cyrus was now the king. Since Cyrus was known to release captives when he conquered a city, it was obvious to the Jews that he would almost certainly release them. The question was when? It was the custom of rulers in Persia, and apparently Babylon, to celebrate the Akitu Festival beginning about Nisan 1. Accompanying this celebration, especially one in combination with celebrating the inauguration (on the 1st day of the 1st official year) was the ceremonial release of captives. Thus, it is extremely likely that the Jewish captives were freed on or about Nisan 1, 538 BCE in connection with the Akitu Festival. Now, from Cyrus' entry into Babylon, October 29, 539 BCE to his inauguration day, Nisan 1, 538 BCE, is 146 days, or nearly five lunar months. This allowed nearly five months for the Jews to prepare for release from captivity, and even more if they were aware that Cyrus' depredations around Babylon before conquering it presaged the fall of Babylon. Ezra 3:1 clearly states that by the 7th month Tishri (Tishri 1 = September 17), the Jews "were in their cities". From Nisan 1 to Tishri 1 is 6 months; 6 plus 5 equals 11, for the mathematically challenged, so the Jews theoretically had nearly 11 months of time to prepare for their Return to Judah and to execute it. The usual travel time between Babylon and Judah was about 4 months, which easily fits in the time slots between Nisan 1 (March 24), 538 and Tishri 1 (September 17), 538, or October 29, 539 and Tishri 1, 538. Either way leaves plenty of time for a return in 538 BCE. Now, Arauna dearie, which of the above bits of information do you disagree with? Which do you agree with? State your reasons and your reasoning. If you disagree with the conclusions, please contact your scientist brother and run it all by him. Perhaps he can explain it to you. Finally you should present a well-documented exposition like I've given you above.

Arauna said: Still no answer to my question: "What does any of this have to do with the issue at hand?" Merely saying "it has a lot to do . . ." without specifying what "a lot" means is just stupid.