Tetley's new book would not promote 607 but it would certainly show the confusion of methodology over 586 or 587 which is what I have been telling you these many months.
Neil ---
How do you know what "it would certainly show" when, as of your post a few days ago, you hadn't even ordered the book yet, let alone read it?
Incidentally, I did look up the "JRTS" article you cited. As we discussed via PM, it was really an article in JETS, not JRTS. And you had the author's name wrong. It was a good article, but it in no way supports your claims about methodology or dating. I've been meaning to get back to you and post a summary of the article, but I've been busy.
Why do you continually give references like this when they don't support you? I have purchased or looked up many of the works and articles you have cited over the years, and they are invariably worthless in terms of proving your point.
Don't you have a professor with whom you are on good terms, perhaps the one who advised you on your master's thesis? In all seriousness, you ought to consider asking him to look over your numerous citations and give you some honest, impartial feedback about the quality of your research. I don't want to offend you, Neil, but imo your work falls far short of scholarly standards. If your heart's dream is to be a published scholar or some kind of research consultant for the WTS, I have to tell you that, honestly, I think you need to sit down with an advisor and reevaluate your goals and gifts and qualifications. Tell him that you would take it as a kindness if he would be totally honest and unsparing in his assessment.
Just my two cents.
Regards,
Marjorie
