tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post6881300757551566504..comments2023-10-24T05:49:04.269-04:00Comments on The Chaliceblog: The new membership numbers will go up on the UUA website soonChalicechickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comBlogger65125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-40029732698578927892009-07-04T23:12:50.629-04:002009-07-04T23:12:50.629-04:00Insult and criticism is a two way street CC and yo...Insult and criticism is a two way street CC and you have done your fair share of it with me and other people. As a rule I do not insult people who have not insulted me or other people first. But yes, because you have chosen to "engage" with me, sometimes with insult (to say nothing of outright injury to my reputation) you have have quite naturally been on the receiving end of more insults and criticism than those who choose not to engage. OTOH a fair number of U*U bloggers, including some U*U ministers, have chosen to engage with me but have done so in a consistently civil if not quite respectful manner and thus have yet to get the back of my virtual "hand". :-) The U*Us who have done so have earned my respect so I am less likely to return the favor if or when they do inadvertently or worse, knowingly and willfully, insult or defame me. The fact that these U*U bloggers have a proven track record of doing no such thing, or at least of have ceased and desisted from any earlier insulting or otherwise offensive behavior, leads me to expect that I am very unlikely to knowingly and willfully insult them any time soon myself.<br /><br />I'll tell you what though CC. I will try to give you a clean slate today and refrain from willfully insulting you as long as you refrain from giving me any reason too insult you. That being said it seems that you have been insulted by some things I have said that were not intended as insults but simply quite truthful and accurate descriptions of your own behavior, most notably your ongoing habit of denying, ignoring, and minimizing unethical behavior of various kinds.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-40724180432352977692009-07-04T22:39:44.433-04:002009-07-04T22:39:44.433-04:00My point was that at least some bloggers have chos...My point was that at least some bloggers have chosen to either ignore everything you say or to simply remove your comments. You sometimes say a thing or two about people who ignore you, but mostly you move on. <br /><br />I take your arguments seriously enough to think about them and respond to them and because of that, you've insulted me FAR more often than the people who just ignore you. <br /><br />It makes sense that since we actually communicate you would of course say more rude things to me than you would to someone who never answers you, but it does mean that I have effectively come under criticism from you also by not taking Patrick's advice and ignoring you. <br /><br />At the least, I could have spared myself a good deal of insult and criticism by taking you less seriously. <br /><br />CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-63949955457022076022009-07-04T21:46:09.955-04:002009-07-04T21:46:09.955-04:00I certainly don't criticize your decision to a...I certainly don't criticize your decision to argue with me CC. I only criticize some of the *content* of your arguments.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-618071199517252852009-05-03T14:55:00.000-04:002009-05-03T14:55:00.000-04:00Robin,
You often write about how when you tell p...Robin, <br /><br />You often write about how when you tell people about your issues with UUism, they agree with you, and you've written in the past that a lot of people at UCM who weren't on the board liked and supported creation day, so I assume you have followers in some sense.<br /><br />I don't see why I have to provide several examples of me having to explain simple things when you can't even produce one to prove your repeated claims that I was rude to you within the first three days of meeting you. Indeed, that I wasn't rude to you in those first three days is in itself something I've had to repeatedly explain and you still don't believe it.<br /><br />As for your considering it an "indictment" that UUism hasn't created a denomination where people who believe different things don't sometime give each other guff about it, people in power don't sometimes abuse that power and get away with it and new prophets are accepted and investigated at their word, I don't know of any church that's like that. <br /><br />Again, my suggestion is that if you think you can put together a church like that, start one. I don't think a church like that exists in this world and we could sorely use one. <br /><br /><br /><br />Patrick,<br /><br />One can either ban and/or ignore Robin or one can talk about his points with him, see where he is coming from and, yes, sometimes argue with him. I consider which path one takes a personal choice and I chose the second. Certainly I get lots of criticism both from Robin and from people who don't like Robin's tactics for this decision, but it is mine to make. <br /><br />CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-39448335918344168872009-05-03T00:02:00.000-04:002009-05-03T00:02:00.000-04:00BTW Fausto it occurs to me that over the years I h...BTW Fausto it occurs to me that over the years I have repeatedly proven beyond any reasonable doubt that a good number of U*Us are constitutionally incapable of actually honoring and upholding U*U principles and ideals haven't I? But go ahead and try U*Us, I dare you. . .Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-73739613539832461622009-05-02T20:21:00.000-04:002009-05-02T20:21:00.000-04:00What "followers" CC?
I haven't ever tried to rec...What "followers" CC? <br /><br />I haven't ever tried to recruit "followers".<br /><br />:Moving on was good for them and enabled them to create their own thing rather than spending their lives fighting for change that wasn't going to happen.<br /><br />That is a pretty sad indictment of the U*U World if the kind of change I am seeking isn't going to happen CC. . . Are U*Us really always going to allow anti-religious bigots to "shit" all over God believing people in U*U "churches"? Will U*Us always allow their ministers to insult and defame people with complete impunity? Will U*Us always be totally full of shit when they claim to be a religion where "Revelation is not sealed!" and "the word of the prophet still flows"? <br /><br />WVC = ofendinRobin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-46395538825738241342009-05-02T14:09:00.000-04:002009-05-02T14:09:00.000-04:00I would, perversely perhaps, miss you. But I don...I would, perversely perhaps, miss you. But I don't think it would change things for UUism much one way of another.<br /><br />I do think it would be good for you.<br /><br />After all, to take the example you chose, had the Christians not moved on from Judaism, they would have lived and died as obscure Jewish heretics who spent their lives criticizing a lot and being ignored by those in power. Moving on was good for them and enabled them to create their own thing rather than spending their lives fighting for change that wasn't going to happen. <br /><br />I'd suggest you follow the example you suggested and take the Christians' path and take your followers with you and do your own thing.<br /><br />CC<br /><br /><br />CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-37943990316671320412009-05-02T13:48:00.000-04:002009-05-02T13:48:00.000-04:00No kidding CC. . .
I don't doubt that Fausto thin...No kidding CC. . .<br /><br />I don't doubt that Fausto thinks that it would be the best thing *for* the whole wide U*U World for me to shake The U*U Movement's outrageously hypocritical "dust" off my feet and move on. No doubt a good number of U*Us would be thoroughly relieved if I did just that but I can assure you and other U*Us that if I completely rejected the U*U World that that rejection of U*U World could potentially have a long lasting negative effect on U*Uism. Look what happened to Judaism when Christians took Jesus' advice and kicked up the proverbial dust while saying sayonara to Judaism. I am perfectly constitutionally capable of doing that but I don't think that it would be very good for the U*U World if I did.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-2084735468535029952009-05-02T11:14:00.000-04:002009-05-02T11:14:00.000-04:00I don't think that's reverse psychology at all. I...I don't think that's reverse psychology at all. I think Fausto thinks that it would be the best thing in the world for you to shake UUism's dust off your feet and move on. I agree.<br /><br />But he thinks you're constitutionally incspable of doing so and I also agree with that.Chalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-24380759919449014622009-05-02T10:57:00.000-04:002009-05-02T10:57:00.000-04:00I don't think that's reverse psychology at all. I...I don't think that's reverse psychology at all. I think Fausto thinks that it would be the best thing in the world for you to shake UUism's dust off your feet and move on. I agree.<br /><br />But he thinks you're constitutionally incspable of doing so and I also agree with that.Chalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-10336200916501421282009-05-02T10:33:00.000-04:002009-05-02T10:33:00.000-04:00Reverse psychology will get you nowhere Fausto. . ...Reverse psychology will get you nowhere Fausto. . .Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-37871843959769728592009-05-01T21:49:00.000-04:002009-05-01T21:49:00.000-04:00Robin said: Fausto, the day I decide to shake hypo...Robin said: <I>Fausto, the day I decide to shake hypocritical U*U dust off my feet and totally abandon the U*U World a whole lot of U*Us are going to choke on that dust. . .<br /></I>Robin, I was addressing that citation to PG, because I figure you're constitutionally incapable of doing it or you would have done so long ago. But go ahead and try, I dare you.faustohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08858053354116695746noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-75974273226107687322009-05-01T20:08:00.000-04:002009-05-01T20:08:00.000-04:00Patrick I couldn't agree more, but don't leave PG ...Patrick I couldn't agree more, but don't leave PG out of that equation. . . Personally I don't mind playing this game with CC and others because U*Us never come out of it looking very good, scorpions indeed. . . which might explain why you prudently suggested we cease and desist. I long ago told U*Us that if they want to engage in virtual mud wrestling with me that I would happily oblige them.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-51756587182648146882009-05-01T20:03:00.000-04:002009-05-01T20:03:00.000-04:00"The statutory stuff aside, this nonlawyer's impre..."The statutory stuff aside, this nonlawyer's impression is that defamation suits are very hard to win and the person who defamed one gets to do it a lot more defaming in the process of putting on their defense."<br /><br />Or the person who did not actually defame anyone, but simply told some rather unpleasant truths about the plaintiff, gets to do a lot more truth telling about the plaintiff in publicly available sworn testimony in court. . . When U*Us falsely accuse me of defaming them I challenge the hypocrites to sue me but they never do because they know all too well that I am not actually defaming them but telling very well documented and thus highly provable truths about them.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-34567636626082983372009-05-01T19:57:00.000-04:002009-05-01T19:57:00.000-04:00CC and Robin--
Why do you bother circling each ot...CC and Robin--<br /><br />Why do you bother circling each other like scorpians under a glass?<br />It seems a bit compulsive on all sides. This has turned into all heat and no light on the original topic. What a waste of time!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-18829080057874775792009-05-01T19:53:00.000-04:002009-05-01T19:53:00.000-04:00Oops, forgot the URL CC was talking about: http://...Oops, forgot the URL CC was talking about: http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/230PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-3482283651326035772009-05-01T19:51:00.000-04:002009-05-01T19:51:00.000-04:00Anonymous,
"from a legal standpoint, does allowin...Anonymous,<br /><br />"from a legal standpoint, does allowing libelous and defamatory comments to remain on a blog open one up to possible litigation? Or would this apply only to the poster of said comment?"<br /><br />This isn't legal advice, but in general if the blog comment section is one without much moderation, basically an open forum, you'll fit easily into the Section 230 provisions that protect service providers.<br /><br />If you want to see just how extensive Sec. 230's protections are, try reading up on the Auto Admit litigation. The plaintiffs are suing various anonymous commenters to a message board who, for example, claimed that the plaintiffs had STDs and suggested raping them. The person who owns and runs the message board is not a defendant, thanks to Sec. 230 protections, but he has gotten tagged with subpoenas for IP data etc. to help the plaintiffs track down the anonymous defendants.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-44199727314593923532009-05-01T19:47:00.000-04:002009-05-01T19:47:00.000-04:00:There have been many times when I've had to expla...:There have been many times when I've had to explain a point to you repeatedly and I've never called you that. <br /><br />Link to some examples CC. Let's say half a dozen or so since you insist that there have been *many* times. More often than not it's the flip side of that scenario that occurs CC. You have repeatedly either misunderstood or misrepresented things that I say, not unlike your friend PG here. <br /><br />I called PG a slow learner because, in this particular instance, she is in fact a rather slow learner.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-81472773638389047582009-05-01T14:29:00.000-04:002009-05-01T14:29:00.000-04:00So you're saying that at the same time we were hav...So you're saying that at the same time we were having that civil conversation, there was another thread where I wax being rude to you? Don't you think you would have mentioned that in the thread that does exist? If nothing else, you gave me a lot of criticism for making an assertion that I couldn't instantly prove. Don't you deserve the same criticism now?<br /><br />And don't you think calling PG a "slow learner" was rude? There have been many times when I've had to explain a point to you repeatedly and I've never called you that. Why call her that?<br /><br />CC<br />Who does not like delayed flightsChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-81713587998334435372009-05-01T14:12:00.000-04:002009-05-01T14:12:00.000-04:00Anonymous,
The Electronic Frontier Foundation kn...Anonymous, <br /><br />The Electronic Frontier Foundation knows more about this topic than I ever will. I suggest you google "eff blog section 230" or some such. If I weren't posting from my phone (which doesn't have a cut and paste function) I would give you a link. If the next person to read this would like to provide that link, I would be grateful.<br /><br />The statutory stuff aside, this nonlawyer's impression is that defamation suits are very hard to win and the person who defamed one gets to do it a lot more defaming in the process of putting on their defense.<br /><br />CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-75998382555784763962009-05-01T14:10:00.000-04:002009-05-01T14:10:00.000-04:00"-Robin is being awfully rude to PG, who hasn't be..."-Robin is being awfully rude to PG, who hasn't been nearly as rude to him."<br /><br />PG has been a bit of a jerk aka asshole towards me and the most "awfully rude" thing that I have said about him was to speculate as to how many "<A HREF="http://chalicechick.blogspot.com/2005/03/ccs-beefs-with-uus-focussing-too-much.html" REL="nofollow">flavors of asshole</A>" he and/or she might be which, needless to say, is part and parcel of my "Eat *Your* Words Diet" CC. . . I was just demonstrating to PG how rude you can be with that little exercise. <br /><br />You provided a link to one specific thread CC. There are other Beliefnet threads which demonstrate your rudeness. Maybe I will try to find some but, as you well know CC, many of the old Beliefnet threads were purged from Beliefnet years ago.Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-78142357263700626022009-05-01T13:49:00.000-04:002009-05-01T13:49:00.000-04:00Have been laptopless for 24 hours now, iPhone conn...Have been laptopless for 24 hours now, iPhone connection is spotty, will make this quick:<br /><br /><br />-I provided a link to my first several days of conversation on Bnet with Robin upthread. I invite you to judge for yourself the truthfulness of his new statement that I was rude to him within the first few days of meeting him.<br /><br />-I never said Morales said the drop was 74 people. Of course he didn't, it would have made the tone of his letter ridiculous had he done so. My guess is he was counting on the actual number not being released for awhile. This blog notwithstanding, the ruse has worked very well.<br /><br />-Robin is being awfully rude to PG, who hasn't been nearly as rude to him.<br /><br />-I am skeptical that the "down by 50 congregations" bit is true for reasons I've already explained. But if we are down by 50 congregations and only 75 people then either our other congregations are growing enough to make up thr difference or the former members of the defunt congregations are joining other congregations. This is a good thing. If two 50-member churches unite into one hundred member one we lose two weak congregations and gain a stronger one. Sounds good to me.<br /><br />Got a plane to catch. See y'all later and thank you to PG especially for the good words.<br /><br />CCChalicechickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781469958573869914noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-32694579855105238472009-05-01T12:46:00.000-04:002009-05-01T12:46:00.000-04:00Lois it was by no means a "lie", i.e. a knowing an...Lois it was by no means a "lie", i.e. a knowing and willful falsehood, for me to say that CC was quite rude from "Day One", it was simply a somewhat loose use of that phrase. CC was quite rude in our earliest interactions on Beliefnet. As I have already said, maybe it was actually on Day Two or Day Three when CC devolved into the DIM Thinking of quite rudely trying to Deny, Ignore and Minimize the U*U injustices, abuses and hypocrisy I was talking about. . .Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-52031217159487956902009-05-01T12:33:00.000-04:002009-05-01T12:33:00.000-04:00:You actually believe that it's OK for you to be r...:You actually believe that it's OK for you to be rude to one person because various third parties -- not the person to whom you are being rude -- are ruder than you are. I mean, gosh, you can't expect people to be polite to anyone in a world where there's any rude people. Let's keep expectations in check here.<br /><br />Once again PG incredibly stupidly misunderstands, or incredibly disingenuously misrepresents. . . what I said. Most likely the latter being a lawyer and all. I said no such thing PG, as should be clear from my previous explanations. I was moderately rude to CC because she is quite regularly rude to me and other people. In fact she has outright defamed me on a number of occasions. Her post about Morales was just a tad rude so I felt no need to be particularly polite to her.<br /><br />:I don't think I'd heard this type of argument since my little sister grew out of the "but all the other kids get to, why can't I" stage. <br /><br />Except I didn't make that argument PG. . . I have however made it very clear to U*Us that I can and will be rude to U*Us who are rude to me and other people and CC most certainly is rude to me and a good number of other people. <br /><br />:Oh, wait, I guess there was something similar at the Supreme Court yesterday when the conservative justices basically said that if other states get to have voting practices with disparate negative impact on minorities, the Southern states should be able to do the same. Good company Robin!<br /><br />Your analogy is off-base because it's premise is wrong as I have already shown a few times now PG. Actually, the "<A HREF="http://emersonavenger.blogspot.com/2008/06/well-rev-diane-miller-did-say-that-uua.html" REL="nofollow">company</A>" I find myself in is a stunningly hypocritical "religious community" that apparently believes that it is "<A HREF="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=qGv&q=Diane+Miller+said+%22within+the+appropriate+guidelines+of+ministerial+leadership%22&btnG=Search&meta=" REL="nofollow">within the appropriate guidelines of ministerial leadership</A>" for U*U ministers to be far more rude to me and other people than I have been to CC in this instance.<br /><br />::An incomplete listing of things you said that turned out to be wrong:<br /><br />"I think that you will find that he was talking about 74 whole *congregations* dropping off the map of the U*U World."<br /><br />CC was wrong too because Morales never mentioned a specific number of lost members. I have very good grounds to doubt the accuracy of that figure too. I had very reasonable grounds to believe that both Morales and Hallman were more concerned about a loss of a significant number of UUA congregations, as per what was said during the telephone presidential forum. I thought that I heard Rev. Hallman speak about a loss of 74 congregations and I have not been proven wrong on that point. It is entirely possible that she misspoke. <br /><br />:"I doubt either Rev. Morales or Rev. Hallman would be concerned about a decrease of 74 members overall"<br /><br />How am I "wrong" in holding to a personal opinion that Rev. Morales and/or Rev. Hallman would not be all *that* concerned about a decrease of 74 members overall, but were rather more likely to be concerned about the loss of whole UUA congregations which now appears to be 50 or so congregations?<br /><br />:"Check your facts CC. It seems like 74 *congregations* not people disappeared off the map of the U*U World in the latest count in February of this year."<br /><br />Yup. That's me. Definitely "wrong" for suggesting that CC check her facts while I checked mine. . . What part of the word "seems" do you not understand PG? It is now abundantly clear that 50 or so whole UUA congregations disappeared off the map of the U*U World in the latest count in February of this year. <br /><br />:"I can't imagine that she or any other top level UUA official would contact 74 individual people to find out why they decided to become XU*Us."<br /><br />How am I "wrong" for finding it hard to believe that Rev. Laurel Hallman, or any other top level UUA official for that matter, would personally track down and interview 74 individual people to find out why they left the U*U fold? Can you prove beyond a proverbial reasonable doubt that I was "wrong" in this personal belief PG? I don't think so. . . I am still quite sure that Rev. Hallman was talking about UUA congregations, not individual U*Us, when she spoke about contacting the lost sheep of the U*U fold to find out why it was that they were no longer members of the UUA.<br /><br />:"I am quiet confident that we are not talking about 74 people."<br /><br />Obviously that is because I was, and still am, very confident that the main concern of Rev. Laurel Hallman and Rev. Peter Morales was a loss of a good number of whole UUA congregations, apparently no less than 40 and as many as 50 or so after my own fact checking endeavors. For the record I am still quite confident that we are not talking about 74 people, it is quite probable that that particular number is "less than accurate".<br /><br />:"Whether it's 74 UUA congregations gone AWOL, or "only" 45, the UUA officially "lost" a significant number of congregations, not just individual members, in the most recent official count."<br /><br />ROTFLMU*UO! And just how am I "wrong here" PG when I publicly acknowledge that the UUA may have lost "only" 45 congregations rather than 74 as initially seemed might be the case based upon what I had heard during the telephone presidential forum?<br /><br />Good thing you didn't provide a complete list of where I was "wrong" eh PG? For the record I am right about the UUA losing at least 40n and as many as 50 or more whole congregations. What do U*Us think that UUA leaders are most concerned about? A loss of 74 individual adult members out of 160,000 or so adult U*Us, or a loss of 40 to 50 whole UUA congregations out of 1050 or so "churches", now bringing UUA congregations below the highly symbolic 1000 mark? <br /><br />I think Matthew 7:6 does apply here Joel, but not in the way you would like to think. . . In fact my now largely validated pearl of wisdom that the UUA presidential candidates are rather more likely to be seriously concerned by a loss of 40 to 50 whole UUA congregations rather than 74 individual members was indeed trampled upon by CC and other U*Us here. But that is by no means the worst way that U*Us have trampled upon the pearls I have offered them over the years is it Joel? Allow me to remind U and other U*Us what U*Us trampled on by paraphrasing Matthew 7:6 with appropriate embedded hyperlinks -<br /><br />"Do not give U*Us what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to ewe-ewes. If you do, they may <A HREF="http://www.google.ca/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=Unitarian+U*Us+called+Creation+Day+a+cult.+.+.&meta=&btnG=Google+Search" REL="nofollow">trample them under their feet</A>, and then <A HREF="http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=8TG&q=Unitarian+U*Us+called+%22Robin+Edgar%22+psychotic.+.+.&btnG=Search&meta=" REL="nofollow">turn and tear you to pieces</A>.<br /><br />Fausto, the day I decide to shake hypocritical U*U dust off my feet and totally abandon the U*U World a whole lot of U*Us are going to choke on that dust. . .Robin Edgarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06208142626285495635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9864334.post-58166663039243649392009-05-01T10:53:00.000-04:002009-05-01T10:53:00.000-04:00Joel, good point. Fausto, that string cite reminds...Joel, good point. Fausto, that string cite reminds me of why I like the Jefferson edition of the KJV: all the Jesus, less repetitive filling.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.com