Pudgy

Look at it this way:
You don’t think Solomon came up with every Proverb himself do you? 
 
Rather he “collected” them and put it into “his” book.  
 
“There is nothing new under the Sun”
🙂

I seriously doubt they are going to get more than 45 people, and no coverage whatsoever. 
Unless of course the protesters are found to have a truckload of 55 gallon drums of diesel fuel mixed with fertilizer and some C4.

To start, harassment, then malice, defamation, etc. 
Ignorance of the law and stupidty(inteptitude) is no defense.

Sue them for what?

…. Let the Reader beware ….

No. It takes 19.

It's a little easier for modern readers to accept our theory than it would have been for readers and listeners at the time Revelation was written. It's very easy for modern readers who use Arabic numerals like we do in Western and Arabic-influenced nations.
In European languages or Arabic, the number six-hundred-sixty-six would look like this: 666.
But in the Greek of Revelation the number was written to look more like χξϛ  or in the oldest manuscript of Revelation and a couple of others the number is XIC. which is not 666 but 616. 
In Latin, just as an analogy, it would look like DCLXVI. One of the oldest Latin translations, however, has it as DCXVI. And to show that this wasn't just a copyist error, the number was also spelled out in the Latin words for "six hundred and sixteen" not just the Roman numerals for 616.
Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading as early as 180 CE, which is even earlier than any known Bible manuscripts of Revelation, but he preferred the number 666, and considered 616 to be a copyist's error. 200 years later (380) Jerome made a new translation into Latin and "corrected" the DCXVI to DCLXVI.
In Hebrew it could look like this: (MSV or TRSV).  [Mem [600] Samekh [60] Vav [6] or Tau [400] Resh [200] Samekh [60] Vav [6] ]
But what's even more interesting is that we can't take a number like 616 and make it mean the same thing no matter how we position the numerals. (661 does not equal 166 does not equal 616) But in Greek you could write the number as XIC, CIX, IXC, XCI etc, and it would always say 616. Same in Hebrew. In fact, in old Hebrew documents and even now, certain order exceptions are common or preferred. Note this from  https://smontagu.org/writings/HebrewNumbers.html
The numerical value of each letter is fixed and not determined by position, so reordering a number will not change its value. This may be done when a number spells out a word with negative connotations (e.g. 298: RESH TSADI HET is the Hebrew for “murder” so it is sometimes written as RESH HET TSADI), or when the reordered form has especially positive connotations (e.g 18: YUD HET is often written as HET YUD, the Hebrew for “alive”). Unlike the previous exception, using the regular form in these cases is not considered an error.
If the last two digits of a number are 15 or 16, they should be expressed not as YUD HE (10+5) and YUD VAV (10+6), but as TET VAV (9+6) and TET ZAYIN (9+7). This is done to avoid a close resemblance to the Tetragrammaton (four-letter name of God) YUD HE VAV HE. Although this convention is originally derived from religious practice, it is universally used even in completely secular contexts.
It's obvious, then, that readers of Greek and Hebrew were even more alert to recalculations of numbers, or the words that might be conveyed. After all, most words could also just be a more convoluted way to convey a number. For example, some say that Matthew is putting special emphasis on the Davidic line when he breaks up the generations from Abraham to Jesus into groups of 14. In Hebrew, the word "DAVID" is also a way to write the number 14. Other Jewish writers did this type of thing regularly.
Here's some info from Wikipedia:
... the appearance of the figure 616 in the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (C; Paris—one of the four great uncial codices), as well as in the Latin version of Tyconius (DCXVI, ed. Souter in the Journal of Theology, SE, April 1913), and in an ancient Armenian version (ed. Conybeare, 1907). Irenaeus knew about the 616 reading, but did not adopt it (Haer. V, 30). In the 380s, correcting the existing Latin-language version of the New Testament (commonly referred to as the Vetus Latina), Jerome retained "666".[13][14]

  Fragment from Papyrus 115 (P115) of Revelation in the 66th vol. of the Oxyrhynchus series (P. Oxy. 4499).[15] Has the number of the beast as χιϛ, 616. Around 2005, a fragment from Papyrus 115, taken from the Oxyrhynchus site, was discovered at the University of Oxford's Ashmolean Museum. It gave the beast's number as 616 (χις). This fragment is the oldest manuscript (about 1,700 years old) of Revelation 13 found as of 2017.[2][3]Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, known before the Papyrus 115 finding but dating to after it, has 616 written in full: ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ, hexakosioi deka hex (lit. "six hundred and sixteen").[16]
Papyrus 115 and Ephraemi Rescriptus have led some scholars to regard 616 as the original number of the beast.[17] According to Paul Louis, "The number 666 has been substituted for 616 either by analogy with 888, the [Greek] number of Jesus (Gustav Adolf Deissmann), or because it is a triangular number, the sum of the first 36 numbers (1+2+3+4+5+6+...+36 = 666)".[18]

This is what I think of when we start talking about apostates.
All the parties involved are a bunch of ineffectual, fat corgi's.

All these comic pictures remind me of my early  teenage years when I couln't wait to see my cousins. I would lie on my stomach and read the comics the whole day. It was a treat!  We were not allowed to have them at home.  I had to read real books at home - which I did. 
Now i find myself in discussions where comics are to convey deep spiritual thoughts.  While it is good to convey some superficial slur or some joke maybe.... I have outgrown this type of communication unless it is really a good joke I can understand. I am not american and do not always get the American references to names, places and events.  So it leaves people like me out in the cold........ it is freezing out here! 

….. could be worse …. You could be a vegetarian.
 

Not ridicule, just playfulness. Learn not to take yourself so seriously as I try not to take myself that way.

Not defending your accusations with fact is the classic definition of “Blustering”.

By the way Moise … you never answered my question about “How was the (David Splane) Chart misrepresented?” … another of your baseless accusations.

Moise: here is a test for you.
I call it the “Bluster Test”, named after Phineas T. Bluster, the marionette Mayor of Doodyville, home of Howdy Doody, of TV fame in the 1950’s. (reference video on YouTube, if interested …)
You have specifically accused me of “exploitation of scripture”.
The burden of proof is yours. 
Specifically, what scriptures have I exploited, and how does one even “exploit a scripture”?

That’s not an attack, merely an observation.

You obviously have not actually READ the text on the chart.

Not defending your accusations with fact is the classic definition of “Bluster”.

Coincidentally, he looks just like his twin brother, Cluster Bluster. You can use his photo.

(  …. Visualizes Moise thinking to himself …””I don’t think we are in Kansas anymore, Toto ….”)

“Oh, shut up, shut up—with that Rooster Cogburn Kentucky-Fried Foghorn accent!!” 
Pretty much my favorite line from Knives Out, which i liked a lot, (though I thought the profanity unnecessary)  But one review I read of Glass onion was that it wasn’t as good.

Coincidentally, he looks just like his twin brother, Cluster Bluster. You can use his photo.

Coming right up—meet Blaine Bluster.

It is good to know, you are @Witness and a former member. The bluster comes from none intellectual cartoons and comments by the poster. However, you seem to renege on your assertions by commenting, and indeed wish to only fight, making the poster's comments meaningless by the poster's own standards, thus your ignorance is your own poster. What, did the poster mention, about ridicule? The poster's words no longer have any value.
First, learn to understand a chart that is displayed. If a person was 20 in 1914 and lived to be 90, it would bring that generation to 1984. If a person is 20 in 1984 and lives to be 90, then it brings a person to 2054.
In the event people don't understand, generations or overlapping generation, posters have no business making up their own assumptions.