Drich, since you've come out as one of the writers responsible for this documentary, I'll repeat a question I asked before:

If the case made in this film is so compelling, why is it buried in a documentary that was shown in a relative handful of church basements rather than hashed out in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals? And don't give me any of the standard-issue fundie crap about how believers' ideas are shut out of the academy. If there is a real case to be made within the relevant academic disciplines, there is a way to go about it, and pandering to groups of people who are desperate to have their approach to Biblical historicity confirmed is not that way.

It's one thing to not have an answer if you are just another believer recommending a documentary. But since you are allegedly one of its writers, you really do owe us an explanation.

Rohl's ideas were not shut out of peer-reviewed journals.

As a matter of fact he was roundly trashed for being a bible-thumping shithead.  Has a lot in common with drippy, there.

(January 7, 2016 at 10:57 am)Crossless1 Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 10:27 am)Drich Wrote: Actually you didn't. Because not only have I "watched the movie" I wrote 1/2 of it.

Just one week into the new year, and Drich is already the front-runner for funniest post of 2016.

What the fuck, Drich (Mr. Law), did Mahoney lose a bet or something?

metaphor. Movie=This thread

(January 7, 2016 at 2:45 pm)Crossless1 Wrote: Drich, since you've come out as one of the writers responsible for this documentary, I'll repeat a question I asked before:

If the case made in this film is so compelling, why is it buried in a documentary that was shown in a relative handful of church basements rather than hashed out in the appropriate peer-reviewed journals? And don't give me any of the standard-issue fundie crap about how believers' ideas are shut out of the academy. If there is a real case to be made within the relevant academic disciplines, there is a way to go about it, and pandering to groups of people who are desperate to have their approach to Biblical historicity confirmed is not that way.

It's one thing to not have an answer if you are just another believer recommending a documentary. But since you are allegedly one of its writers, you really do owe us an explanation.

Asked and answered

By sheer coincidence today's Dilbert seems a pretty fair caricature of drippy, too.

(January 7, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Drich Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 10:57 am)Crossless1 Wrote: Just one week into the new year, and Drich is already the front-runner for funniest post of 2016.

What the fuck, Drich (Mr. Law), did Mahoney lose a bet or something?

metaphor. Movie=This thread

No, more like Sentence = Piss Poor, Unclear Writing

(January 7, 2016 at 3:07 pm)Crossless1 Wrote:

(January 7, 2016 at 3:00 pm)Drich Wrote: metaphor. Movie=This thread

No, more like Sentence = Piss Poor, Unclear Writing

Take it up with stimbo his metaphore. I just ran with it.

(January 7, 2016 at 3:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote: By sheer coincidence today's Dilbert seems a pretty fair caricature of drippy, too.

Actually Minnie It would only be accurate if the lady here read 1/8 of the report and then 'predicted the rest' and then addressed facts from her prediction rather than what was written. then to top it all off argue 'facts of HER own prediction' against reports that contradict her 'prediction' of the orginal report never ONCE actually speaking to what the report actually said!

All you want is someone to tell you that fairy tales are real, drip-shit.  Facts are an embarrassing for you.

(January 7, 2016 at 10:20 am)Drich Wrote:

(January 6, 2016 at 12:22 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Example.  You cannot move the reign of Ramesses II up by 300 years without also moving the Hittite Empire up by the same 300 years since they fought each other at Kadesh and identical copies of the peace treaty have been found in Egypt and Hatusa.  But the Hittite Empire ceased to exist as a result of the depredations of the Sea People c 1190 BC and this is securely dated by non Egyptian or biblical means.  Rohl does not give a flying fuck about that because all he is trying to do is give fools like you a reason to cling to your absurd exodus tale.  He is a charlatan and has been denounced as a charlatan for a generation already.

Again No! Closing the gap on the 2nd egyptian dark age from 400 to 100 years (a time where nothing was recorded/is lost historically so we can't possibly know exactly how long this age lasted) Does NOT affect the time of ramses and the third kingdom.
WHAT THE MOVIE YOU OLD GOAT! You sound like a moron and don't even know it! You keep bring up the same points and are either ignoring what I/the movie says or are too thick to understand the time shift the movie talks about happens before the third dynasty which is when Ramses lived!

When you make statements like this, Drich, it makes you sound like the one who didn't watch the movie. Yes the time shift does affect things in the final period, and that was explicitly stated in the film; they spent 5-10 minutes talking about it.