<<I chose to cease quotation where I did because Hugh Ross has an
elipsis there. I do not know where Hugh gets his quotation of Tattersall from
and do not know if only one word or 10 paragraphs intervene in the quotation
ellipsis. I do not know if it was Tattersall who said the part after the
elipsis. I have seen elipses hide many a sin so I chose to quote exactly what
I could be sure went together. If Hugh had quoted in full, then I would have
also.>>
Wait a cotten pickin' minute here. YOU choose to pick up a quote from an
article and YOU get to select WHICH portions of that quote you are going to
trust, conveniently leaving out the part that turns your contention on its
head, merely because YOU don't know what might be in between? So even though
the full quote might very well be accurate, you choose to ignore that
possibility and assume it is not, stop wherever you like, and declare
Tattersall has "thrown in the towel"! And THEN you call the COMPLETE quotation
from the article which YOU cited a "red herring" when you ADMIT you DON'T KNOW
what might be there!
Glenn! What brew are you sipping out there?
Jim