Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: "Uncle Davey" <noway@jose.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.uncle-davey
Subject: Re: Baptism: Not A Requirement for Salvation
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:40:45 +0100
Organization: Ladny Tylek & Takdalej
Lines: 63
Message-ID: <bqfd9p$h7n$1@atlantis.news.tpi.pl>
References: <vsm893o7att892@corp.supernews.com> <bqf9q2$697$1@nemesis.news.tpi.pl> <FXFyb.60758$t01.39970@twister.socal.rr.com> <vsmcgbk7rg6nf3@corp.supernews.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cu92.neoplus.adsl.tpnet.pl
X-Trace: atlantis.news.tpi.pl 1070282875 17655 80.54.217.92 (1 Dec 2003 12:47:55 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@tpi.pl
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2003 12:47:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.fan.uncle-davey:916
news:vsmcgbk7rg6nf3@corp.supernews.com...
> "Dr. Jason Gastrich" <news@jcsm.org> wrote in message
> news:FXFyb.60758$t01.39970@twister.socal.rr.com...
> > Uncle Davey wrote:
>
> > Excellent post, brother.
> >
>
> No, it's not. I didn't repost the articles to solicit the "opinions" of
the two
> of you on Baptism but to show that two postings which I made in the thread
above
> were removed from the archive on Google... along with every other posting
I made
> between Sept 20th and October 1st 2003 to that newsgroup. Your "Uncle"
Davey
> claims to be responsible for that archive and the deletion of those
posting
> proves exactly the point that I have made in the last couple of days
concerning
> any Christian who doesn't walk lock step with you in that newsgroup!
Please explain where I made any such outrageous claim.
I am not responsible for the Google archive.
I was pointing out that we are archived from 20th September.
Some threads prior to 24th September are broken, and so if you are searching
on the thread you won't necessarily get back to them.
I did check whether your non-standard spelling 'chutzbah' has been used in
free.christians to date, and Google thinks not, so either it did not
propagate properly through Usenet or you only sent it to non-included
groups. We can't do anything about it.
Nobody is interested in censoring your views or keeping them out of any
archive.
Even blasphemers are not treated that way, and I wouldn't put you in that
category.
Send them again, and this time they probably will be archived, barring any
technical problems outside our control.
>
> By the way, have you actually read "Answers to Some Frequently Heard
Objections
> to Biblical Baptism" (one of the two article you were supposed to do a
"point by
> point refutation" of)? There is a link at the end of that article that
leads to
> another page titled, "Further Objections To Biblical Baptism" that
addressed
> your essay... your promised link is there. It appears one of us knows what
> "integrity" means!
In this thou spakest truly.
Uncle Davey
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
|