Jump to content
The World News Media

Ann O'Maly

Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    839

  • Joined

  • Days Won

    6

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Ann O'Maly

  1. Ann O'Maly
    Naw, I saw the original, outrageously out-of-order post but hadn't had chance to comment on it earlier. I partially agree with @AlanF in that people should be allowed to show their true colors. However, if there is to be any meaningful discussion of 'controversial' subjects at all, no matter how idiotic and difficult some posters might be and have been for years [let the reader use discernment ], one shouldn't have to wade through a quagmire of base insults and crud-slinging to get to the relevant, on-topic parts.Â
  2. Ann O'Maly
    Wow. I get called all the cusswords under the sun ... just for calling AllenSmith[insert#here] a kumquat several pages ago? Â
  3. Ann O'Maly
    I think both @Arauna and @AlanF will be interested in this new study: https://www.academia.edu/35554936/Judeans_in_Babylonia_A_Study_of_Deportees_in_the_Sixth_and_Fifth_Centuries_BCE From the introduction: "Deportees played a key role here [in the less populated regions]: they were settled in marginal rural areas and integrated into the land-for-service sector of agriculture.33 Given plots of land to cultivate, they had to pay taxes and perform work and military service in return. The majority of cuneiform sources pertaining to Judeans originate from the land-for-service sector of Babylonian agriculture." - p. 6 "Agriculture was of huge importance to the Babylonian economy, and a great many deportees were settled in the countryside to bring new land under cultivation. There is no evidence that the Babylonians practised Assyrian-style two-way deportations, but deportees were predominantly taken to Babylonia, especially to depopulated areas in the countryside." - p. 9 I've only skimmed parts of this doctoral dissertation because it's only just come up in my email feed.
  4. Ann O'Maly
    From the 'Neil-Speak Glossary': Fact: /fakt/ : noun plural noun: facts a thing that is imagined to be true but bears no resemblance to objective reality. post-truth, Trumpian, 'alternative facts'. also commonly known as 'BS'.
  5. Ann O'Maly
    Those 'greater minds' haven't benefited you any as far as scholastic honesty and integrity are concerned, unfortunately, even when your face is repeatedly slammed with the scriptural and historical evidence. Well, that was a success story, lol. Neil's heart-warming experience of how JWs helped an educated, professional couple convert to Judaism will doubtlessly be included in a forthcoming JWdotOrg Broadcasting production. You read it here first, folks. The rest of your post is even sillier than your first paragraph so isn't worthy of comment. Tap or click on the image, then tap/click again, then swipe or Ctrl + to enlarge? Your browser may need a cache clear-out and relaunching?
  6. Ann O'Maly
    You had listed your source as this, Nana: The Bible Dictionary was commenting on the Nabonidus Chronicle but, because the Bible Dictionary was published in the 19th century, its dating of the Persian conquest of Babylon was a year out. The Nabonidus Chronicle only gives a damaged '17th year' of Nabonidus for Babylon's fall - it doesn't contain BCE dating. The modern scholar has to deduce the BCE date by other means. As I said, the Bible Dictionary was out a year. Nice try, though.
  7. Ann O'Maly
    Your antiquated source has Cyrus conquering Babylon in 538 rather than the established 539. It doesn't help you determine that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 538. In reality, once the year is corrected, it shows that Cyrus could only issue his decree from Oct 539. We have no issue with Cyrus issuing his decree after Oct 539. (Just saw Alan had already addressed this. Soz.)
  8. Ann O'Maly
    I bet you wish you had posted p. 208 yourself, hey Neil, like you were asked, instead of baiting me and @Anna to find another source. Then you wouldn't have found yourself splattered on the windshield of the @AlanF juggernaut yet again  This is how attentive to detail you are - you still can't even get the page number right. In the 2nd edition, Franz discussed John A. Brown on p. 142-3. There is nothing about Brown on p. 367 - just a reproduction of a letter regarding Franz's disfellowshipping. As I showed in my previous post, your assertion about Franz agreeing with the Proclaimers book statement is wrong. But you know all this. AlanF went over this with you many years ago. And yet you persist in these untruths. Likely for the same reason I can't address him by his chosen online misnomer. I start breaking out in hives when I do. ------------------------------ About the 537 thing. There was a fun thread on that topic started by one of the Allen Smiths a while back. His argument for a 537 return could be summarized thus: Link to post. Â
  9. Ann O'Maly
    Smh. Um, for years you have been clutching that ball tightly to your chest, ungraciously refusing to bat it across. Fortunately, someone has thrown over another one. It took the person* less than 2 hours, Neil! To review, you claimed: At last, readers here can judge for themselves how 'plain' and 'evident' the connection is ... or otherwise:  Further, you said: I also have his 2nd edition, although it's a 1992 printing. Franz did not "support the Society's position" about what was stated in the Proclaimers book. He actually said: "Brown first published this interpretation in 1823 and his method converted the “seven times” into 2,520 years in exactly the same way found today in Watch Tower publications." ... meaning that the way Brown converted 'seven times' into 2,520 years, by using a day-for-a-year method, is the same one Watchtower uses. That's quite different to what you were implying. By 2004, Franz had added a footnote: "See page 134 of Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom. The book makes the erroneous statement that, although not ‘clearly discerning’ the date with which the 2,520 years would begin or end (evidently meaning that his dates for the beginning and the ending did not match those of Watch Tower teachings), Brown “did connect these ‘seven times’ with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.” As Jonsson’s book The Gentile Times Reconsidered correctly states “Brown did not himself associate this period with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24.” His 2,520- year calculation did, however, play a part in the later linking of the “seven times” with the Gentile Times in 1826. See The Gentile Times Reconsidered, pages 32-36, for a full discussion of this development." - p. 179 So as usual Neil, your claims do not align with reality. * Thanks go to Alan F for promptly providing the scan.
  10. Ann O'Maly
    Indeed it is. You know what to do.
  11. Ann O'Maly
    Somebody quickly build a Starbucks there or those pioneers will never survive.
  12. Ann O'Maly
    In all your nearly 20 years of possessing it, you've never 'been disposed' to sharing it. Again I ask, Neil: Why should anyone bother Bethel about it? Don't they have enough to do? YOU have the page. YOU are here now. YOU can easily post it ... unless the page's contents contradict your claim which, given your long posting history on the internet, is entirely probable. But if you're not going to do it, you're not going to do it, so let's move on.Â
  13. Ann O'Maly
    Why bother Bethel? You have the page, a computer, and yet you won't share - even to help @Anna. This just makes you look plain mean, Neil ... or scared that it will reveal you've been the one trying to hide the truth. Ah well.
  14. Ann O'Maly
    You are 'not disposed' to post it. As I said before, this is telling. As long as you refuse to produce it, we cannot verify whether your claim is true. As far as we are concerned, for the purposes of this line of discussion, p. 208 doesn't exist. We will have to rely on the testimony that is available, namely, the excerpts of Brown's Even Tide that are accessible online and which show that you, and the Proclaimers book, erred.
  15. Ann O'Maly
    Sometimes the stampeding herd mentality is right (like those who advocate 2+2=4). Sometimes the stampeding herd mentality is wrong (like when the consensus was that we lived in a geocentric universe). You will have to provide some darned, good, scientific arguments to overturn all the evidence that the acceleration of global warming is being caused by man.
  16. Ann O'Maly
    Arauna and all: See also: Astronomical Pseudo-Science: A Skeptic's Resource List: 7. Immanuel Velikovsky and Worlds in Collision
  17. Ann O'Maly
    @scholar JW
  18. Ann O'Maly
    The reason I linked to the article was to respond to your idea that an increase in CO2 is good thing because ... PLANTS. We need sufficient quantities of plants to use up the CO2. If people keep chopping down huge land areas of forest, there won't be enough plant life to absorb all this supposed beneficial CO2. But too much CO2 isn't good for plants anyway, and they need more than that to survive and thrive. See the article 'Plants cannot live on CO2 alone' linked to earlier. Excess CO2 results in the acidification of the salty oceans which in turn harms ocean life - including plant life. You mentioned acid rain before. Even though you said it's a result of mixing carbon and rainwater (it actually results from mixing sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides with rainwater), you apparently didn't join the dots of how damaging it would be and is to plants!
  19. Ann O'Maly
    Plants cannot live on CO2 alone Great. Have the conservation and regrowth of U.S. forests kept pace with the deforestation rates in the rest of the world, primarily the Amazon? has hard data done by actual measurements .... AND those measurements are accurate ... that quote is a meaningless lie. Do you REALLY think the author of that quote ACTUALLY counted the trees, and the cars, trucks, and such? The author took the figures from studies.
  20. Ann O'Maly
    But these effects are only pieces of a larger picture; environmental and climate scientists have already factored that in. Direct evidence of human contribution to atmospheric CO2 But you need sufficient quantities of plant life to offset the excess CO2. And also ... "From logging, agricultural production and other economic activities, deforestation adds more atmospheric CO2 than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world's roads"
  21. Ann O'Maly
    NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?
  22. Ann O'Maly
    How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?
  23. Ann O'Maly
    I guessed that was the reason. As you have seen multiple times, my own patience runs out (far more quickly than yours!) with the kinds of people who should know better by now. Patience is reserved for those genuinely trying to learn about and negotiate their way around this involved subject.
  24. Ann O'Maly
    Yeah, yeah. Produce it, then. @allensmith28 ... @JW Insider is trying to tell you that there is a difference between astronomical year numbering and AD/BC or CE/BCE year numbering. Common mistake.
  25. Ann O'Maly
    You're offended by being called the name of a small, orange fruit. COJ never thought NBC 4897 an astronomical text, you donut. ('Donut' - you can tell the gloves are coming off now!)
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.