-Jay-

One has to wonder if Dave gets points or something the longer he hangs on in a discussion like this.

regards,

NinJay

James Brown

Jewels for the crown, my friend. Jewels for the crown.

VoxRat

I don't know.

Does today's half-hearted attempt at making a show of making an appearance really even count as "hanging in" on the discussion?

Looks to me like Dave knows the jig is up; he's out of ammunition, and all he has left is bluster.

-Jay-

In engineering school, we were taught that if you build your filter cleverly enough, you can exclude any data you don't want to see...

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

For sake of argument, I propose Bram Stoker's masterpiece, Dracula. (It is Halloween season, after all.) Half of the work is already done for you, Dave, since the narrative is presented as the collected letters and journals of several different sources. The split amongst the sources is already done within the book. Demonstrate how the linguistic and thematic elements within the text (and text alone) allow you to split sections of the text among Harker, Mina, and Van Helsing. The catch here is that we know that all of these "sources" were written by the same person, so we can check your work. Go ahead, Dave. Take a shot. The text can be found here. Stoker made a deliberate effort to give each source a distinct character, so this should be low hanging fruit for you, Dave.

regards,

NinJay

Dean Anderson

I'm going to be tied up most of the weekend (Oo-er Missus!) so don't expect anything substantial from me for a day or too...

Dave Hawkins

No problem ... I'll wait. One thing ... you mentioned that it would be way too much trouble to type in the whole Torah to show me where all the DH divisions are. Agreed. All I'm really looking for is a list something like this ...

Gen 1:1 - 2:4a P
Gen 2:4b - 4:26 J
Gen 5:1 - 5:28 P
...
etc. through the whole Torah.

I have typed in such a list for the Tablet Theory here ... http://afdave.wordpress.com/2006/09/...-dawn-of-time/ ... see review of Chapter 5.

VoxRat

So... Dave -
This would be the perfect moment for you to explain why 2 = 14, no?
Why our failure to see why caused you to fall out of your chair laughing?
Like you said you were going to, what? 10 days ago now?

Dave Hawkins

It was explained long ago ... I'm not going to cover old ground

Lucretius

I am sorry Dave but as not one person here appears to have seen this explanation maybe you could repeat it.
Or as you are so fond of providing links to your previous statements just a link to the relevant post would do.
As far as you not wishing to "cover old ground" I am afraid that as far as I can see that is the entire substance of the majority of your posts here