This is a discussion on Re: Her you go, JCobb - Your desired start of discussion - OS2 ; In article , duke wrote: >On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:58:40 +0000 (UTC), firstname.lastname@example.org (Charlotte L. >Blackmer) wrote: > >>In article , >>duke wrote: >>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:39:35 +0000 (UTC), email@example.com (Charlotte L. >>>Blackmer) wrote: >>> >>>>>Really? Obviously ...
>On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 20:58:40 +0000 (UTC), firstname.lastname@example.org (Charlotte L.
>>In article <email@example.com>,
>>>On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 04:39:35 +0000 (UTC), firstname.lastname@example.org (Charlotte L.
>>>>>Really? Obviously you have no evidence of a continuous line of elected
>>>>>popes between 60 AD and the next 300 years. If you had such evidence,
>>>>>you undoubtedly would have posted it.
>>>>Chapter and verse if it was from the NT. Which it is most definitely NOT.
>>>The List of Popes
>>>See also POPE, PAPAL ELECTIONS, ELECTION OF THE POPE.
>>Um, Duke, you might want to switch to a properly threaded newsreader.
>What do this mean?
Someone who's been on the net your length of time should have at least
heard of it.
But the short explanation is that a threaded newsreader preserves the line
of posts in a way that you can easily travel between an article, its
predecessor, and any responses like beads on a string.
You can google the rest.
>I'm having a lot of trouble right now with outgoing
>messages. About 23 hours a day I'm offline for some reason. So this might all
>be another clue as to what's going on.
I doubt it.
>>I'm not the one disputing a continuous line of Bishops of Rome (although
>>you still really need a good grownup Church History refresher). I'm the
>>one disputing your previous claim that it's all "Biblical" and asking
>>folks to not mix up the New Testament and Early Church tradition.
>>(All by way of saying ... you spewed the list in the wrong post, and
>>didn't address MY concerns.)
>I'm only going by what I see.
I will note that it is also entirely possible and within your control to
edit out all references to my article if you're piggybacking on it to
respond to someone else, especially if you're not going to address issues
>And I'm not sure which posts are going thru and which are not.
Do you not know how to check in Google Groups?
>So I made use of opportunity.
That "post" key is your golden calf, bud. It owns you. Heart and soul.
If you don't want to be owned, you might consider not posting till
more things straighten out.
>>BTW regarding elections of Roman Bishops, you might want to check out:
>We just had one.
NO!?! REALLY?!!? AND I MISSED IT?!!? WHO WON??!?
If you'd bothered reading the link (from a respected Catholic online
source), you would have known that it is about the historical development
of how the Bishops of Rome (known as "Popes" much later) got their jobs.
But noooooo, you just had to react and post something that totally missed
the point, didn't you?
Vade retro, jerkwad. Here's hoping that you have industrial-strength
insurance to cover that massive jerking of the knee.