[Milton-L] the Immaculate Conception
jamesrovira at gmail.com
Sun Dec 19 10:56:30 EST 2010
Many apologies for my previous post on the immaculate conception. I read my
email this morning in order from most recent to oldest. I should have
guessed all ground would have been covered by then.
On Sun, Dec 19, 2010 at 12:42 AM, Dennis Danielson <
danielso at interchange.ubc.ca> wrote:
> OK, so this hasn't much to do with Milton. And perhaps I shouldn't rise to
> the bait. But Mr. Sirrah's assumptions are apparently false (infuriating,
> too, but let that pass) on two counts:
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Milton-L