Re: The Protestant church is not worthy of the name "church"
- From: Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.McCaughan@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:34:58 +0100
"loiner2003" wrote:
I have noted a couple of posts where the > is missing but that is not the
norm and I assumed it must be a characteristic of whatever program the other
party was using.
If anyone else is reading this, please can you let me know if my posts do
not appear to be quoting correctly? And, Ken, does the problem occur with
all my posts or just some of them?
This one's OK. Some of your recent articles have had indentation
(I haven't checked whether it's tabs or spaces) instead of ">"s.
--
Gareth McCaughan
..sig under construc
.
- References:
- Re: The Protestant church is not worthy of the name "church"
- From: loiner2003
- Re: The Protestant church is not worthy of the name "church"
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: The Protestant church is not worthy of the name "church"
- From: loiner2003
- Re: The Protestant church is not worthy of the name "church"
- From: Kendall K. Down
- Re: The Protestant church is not worthy of the name "church"
- From: loiner2003
- Re: The Protestant church is not worthy of the name "church"
- Prev by Date: Re: Evidence for Christianity?
- Next by Date: Re: Evidence for the soul?
- Previous by thread: Re: The Protestant church is not worthy of the name "church"
- Next by thread: Re: The Protestant church is not worthy of the name "church"
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading