Outlook Express top posts
Bible John
this to the Outlook Experts.
Guys how do I change the settings so that my sig is not top posted when I
reply to a poster on Usenet?
I need Outlook Express to behave like every other client I have used. I
need the sig to show at the bottom and not the top.
Regarding your non technical remarks BB.
"Bible does not speak of a trinity John. The word is not in the book."
If you had been to bible college or at least bought yourself a theological
dictionary you would have discovered over a half dozen words that are never
mentioned in the bible, but whose concepts are taught in the bible. Why you
continue to fail to understand this is beyond me. Rogue or some other
atheist once said you were the dumbest person in these boards, because you
have failed constantly to pick up concepts. Steve Winter understands
concepts, but you do not. No wonder he is a pastor and you are not.
Regardless here are a few words off the top of my tongue that are not
mentioned by name in the scriptures.
Bible
General Revelation
Special Revelation
Trinity
Omnipresence
I could dig through my Pocket Theological dictionary and find dozens more
terms not mentioned in the bible. But I'd rather not.
John
--
Luke 9:26-If anyone is ashamed of me and | CERM
http://www.cerm.info
my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed | Church Education Resource
Ministries
of him when he comes in his glory and in | Founder and Director
the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
"Bible Bob" <bibl...@saintly.com> wrote in message
news:mmcf72900j4kbbpbc...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 May 2006 16:54:30 -0700, "Bible John"
> <johnw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Will you please stop top posting your sig at the top of posts. It
> prevents carry over of it and the text below it into the response. In
> other words, you free advertisment is not carried forward. Put it at
> the bottom and drop out the two dashes "--" which cause the problem.
>
> Youd did not answer the question. Aren't you smart enough to answer
> the question? Why did you avoid answering the question by divertaing
> attention away from you to I and Steve? That is not honest. The
> Bible does not speak of a trinity John. The word is not in the book.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Interviewing other pastors won't solve this basic problem for you (and
>>> the
>>> others).
>>>
>>> sharon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> |
>>> | --
>>> | Luke 9:26-If anyone is ashamed of me and | CERM
>>> | http://www.cerm.info
>>> | my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed | Church Education Resource
>>> | Ministry
>>> | of him when he comes in his glory and in | Founder and Director
>>> | the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
>>> | "lizzard woman" <kimosa...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
>>> | news:%8Jdg.192864$7a.133135@pd7tw1no...
>>> | > Thanks for posting all that, Grinder. I love these walks down the
>>> | > Gastrich
>>> | > memory lane. I wish he would do more debates. I'm leaving it in
>>> because
>>> | > I
>>> | > believe it would benefit Bible John to read it and I don't think I'm
>>> | > kill-filed by him.
>>> | >
>>> | > sharon
>>> | >
>>> | >
>>> | > "Grinder" <gri...@no.spam.maam.com> wrote in message
>>> | > news:5uHdg.4044$1i1.1439@attbi_s72...
>>> | > | lizzard woman wrote:
>>> | > | > John,
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > Have you ever thought about the Rev Dr Lenny Flank's immortal
>>> | > question?
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > Basically, he asks people like yourself why your claims of the
>>> | > "correct"
>>> | > set
>>> | > | > of religious beliefs are more authoritative than those of his
>>> | > | > brother-in-law's aunt's butler's pizza deliver boy?
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > I think he is saying that you can believe anything you want but
>>> the
>>> | > entire
>>> | > | > enterprise of religious proselytizing is batshit crazy because
>>> none
>>> of
>>> | > you
>>> | > | > can prove why your ideas as right and those of the "spiritual
>>> | > terrorists"
>>> | > | > are wrong. It's even more crazy when you consider you and
>>> several
>>> of
>>> | > these
>>> | > | > others are working from the same text (the Bible).
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > I have NEVER seen a religionist answer that question in anything
>>> close
>>> | > to a
>>> | > | > coherent manner.
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > I think once you see the wisdom in the question, you can get off
>>> this
>>> | > | > ministry bandwagon and start enjoying life to best you can.
>>> | > | >
>>> | > | > Trying to help here.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | It's an excellent question that I think Bible John would benefit
>>> from
>>> | > | considering, so I don't want to forshorten your note by butting
>>> in.
>>> | > | Hopefully Bible John has me killfiled as has claimed.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | I just wanted to add a bit of on point discussion from Jason
>>> Gastrich's
>>> | > | interview of Dan Barker. It's from the good old days when Jason
>>> would
>>> | > | at least act like he would think about things that he does not
>>> normally
>>> | > | think about.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> | > |
>>> | > | DB: ... You can't name a church in Christianity that isn't a split
>>> off
>>> | > | of something, somewhere. That's just a part of the healthy part of
>>> the
>>> | > | Christian experience.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | JG: Yeah. But usually also the differences can be very small, as
>>> far
>>> as
>>> | > | like sprinkling or immersion for baptism, or just issues like
>>> that.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | DB: Well I know a guy--he's also a former Church of Christ
>>> minister,
>>> | > | Farrell Till--he said the Church of Christ had a split over
>>> whether
>>> or
>>> | > | not the communion cup should have a handle.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | JG: Oh wow.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | DB: They really did. And, I mean, people who believe the Bible
>>> really
>>> | > | seriously, they'll... It's got to be literal or not, and they're
>>> not
>>> | > | going to fellowship with other Christians who don't have the
>>> exact...
>>> | > |
>>> | > | JG: Wow.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | DB: It's a kind of intolerance that all religions have, not just
>>> | > | Christianity. Whenever you think you have the one true way,
>>> there's
>>> this
>>> | > | kind of ...
>>> | > |
>>> | > | JG: Well it's interesting that God does give us the liberty to
>>> decide
>>> on
>>> | > | these little matters and not kill each other all in the same
>>> specific
>>> | > | camp, but kind of have our own churches where people can worship
>>> and
>>> ...
>>> | > |
>>> | > | DB: You know it's interesting that all of these churches, what are
>>> | > | there, twelve hundred denominations in the United States? They all
>>> will
>>> | > | claim that God has given to them the correct interpretation, and
>>> all
>>> the
>>> | > | others are a little bit off in some way. And as you've pointed
>>> out,
>>> | > | there's been a lot of intolerances and wars fought over this. Each
>>> one
>>> | > | of them will open the Bible and prove to you with their Bible, if
>>> they
>>> | > | interpret it their way, that they are right. And they can all do
>>> that.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | JG: I know that would seemingly be something that would go to the
>>> side
>>> | > | of an atheist to show, hey if there's twelve hundred
>>> interpretations
>>> and
>>> | > | there's one God, one Holy Spirit, where's the rub? How can this
>>> be?
>>> I
>>> | > | guess from a Christian perspective, the would say, since the Fall
>>> and
>>> | > | since sin came into the world, the Devil and the powers of
>>> darkness,
>>> | > | such as demons and things, do tempt and cloud vision and, you
>>> know,
>>> | > | destroy the truth ...
>>> | > |
>>> | > | DB: Yeah, everyone's vision but yours. Right?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | JG: (Laughs) Well, I guess everyone's vision but God's.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | DB: Yeah, but everyone says they have God's, right? They all say
>>> it.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | JG: Yeah, I can't say that I'm perfect and everything that I know
>>> is
>>> | > | perfect, but I think what we're talking about here is
>>> non-essentials.
>>> | > | The essential things of salvation are agreed upon by the vast
>>> majority
>>> | > | of the denominations. That's Christ [as] deity, dying on the cross
>>> for
>>> | > | our sins, the nature of God, the essentials for salvation.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | DB: Well you're describing the essentials for evangelical
>>> churches.
>>> | > | There are a lot of middle or liberal churches that don't bind to
>>> those
>>> | > | essentials. But yeah, your describing a kind of evangelical
>>> | > | fundamentalist. Because you would be critical of liberal
>>> Christians
>>> | > | probably, who would say that a ... The ... Unification, not the
>>> | > | Unificationists, the Universalists who think there is no Hell and
>>> that
>>> | > | we're all going to be saved. You're obviously going to have to
>>> draw
>>> your
>>> | > | line somewhere. And everybody thinks they're drawing the line in
>>> the
>>> | > | right place. I used to think it. I used to think all these other
>>> people
>>> | > | has this proclivity to error, to being deceived in some way, but
>>> not
>>> me.
>>> | > | Not me, of course. I'm a part of the same human race that they
>>> are,
>>> but
>>> | > | somehow I was blessed. I was special. I was somehow a little bit
>>> above
>>> | > | all these other wrong-headed Christians. Or else I was lucky
>>> enough
>>> to
>>> | > | be born into the right family.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | - - - - - - - - - - -
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Another excerpt from a transcript that my introduction has
>>> reminded
>>> me
>>> | > | of, this time from the Scopes Trial:
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Darrow: You believe the story of the flood to be a literal
>>> | > interpretation?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Bryan: Yes, sir.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Darrow: When was that flood?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Bryan: I would not attempt to fix the date. The date is fixed, as
>>> | > | suggested this morning.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Darrow: About 4004 B. C.?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Bryan: That has been the estimate of a man that is accepted today.
>>> I
>>> | > | would not say it is accurate.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Darrow: That estimate is printed in the Bible?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Bryan: Everybody knows, at least, I think most of the people know,
>>> that
>>> | > | was the estimate given.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Darrow: But what do you think that the Bible, itself, says? Don't
>>> you
>>> | > | know how it was arrived at?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Bryan: I never made a calculation.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Darrow: A calculation from what?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Bryan: I could not say.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Darrow: From the generations of man?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Bryan: I would not want to say that.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Darrow: What do you think?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Bryan: I do not think about things I don't think about.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Darrow: Do you think about things you do think about?
>>> | > |
>>> | > | Bryan: Well, sometimes.
>>> | > |
>>> | > | (Laughter in the courtyard.)
>>> | > |
>>> | > | The Policeman: Let us have order.
>>> | >
>>> |
>>> |
>>> |
>>> | Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>>> | ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> | ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>>> | ----------------------------------------------------------
>>> | http://www.usenet.com
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
>>----------------------------------------------------------
>> ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
>>----------------------------------------------------------
>> http://www.usenet.com
>
>
> .....
> BB
> http://www.biblebob.net
>
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com
Terrell D Lewis
"Bible John" <johnw...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:11487101...@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> BB I think I will need some technical expertise here so I have crossposted
> this to the Outlook Experts.
> Guys how do I change the settings so that my sig is not top posted when I
> reply to a poster on Usenet?
> I need Outlook Express to behave like every other client I have used. I
> need the sig to show at the bottom and not the top.
>
Outlook Express is a poor newsgroup reader, that being said, I use it. To
do this go Tools/Options/Signature and uncheck the box to add signature to
replies, then type your post and hit Insert/Signature when done typing ... a
small amount of effort, but will eliminate the problem.
Terrell
Bible John
--
Luke 9:26-If anyone is ashamed of me and | CERM
http://www.cerm.info
my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed | Church Education Resource
Ministries
of him when he comes in his glory and in | Founder and Director
the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.
"Terrell D Lewis" <compose...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:4kSdg.34356$4L1....@newssvr11.news.prodigy.com...
Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
Ottmar Freudenberger
> Guys how do I change the settings so that my sig is not top posted when I
> reply to a poster on Usenet?
Are you familiar with humbling through and editing the registry, the
heart and brain of Windows? Since you're on Windows XP SP2, there's
a chance then.
HKCU\Identities\{The OE Identity's GUID}\Software\Microsoft\Outlook Express\5.0
\signatures\Number of the signature
create a new DWORD value named "end" and associate the content "1"
(one) to it. That will lead to the signature beeing placed under your
posting but *in front of* messages content you're quoting on the bottom.
If you prefer to reply at the bottom you'll need to manipulate another
registry key:
HKCU\Identities\{The OE Identity's GUID}\Software\Microsoft\Outlook Express\5.0
create a new DWORD value named "Reply At End" and associate the
content "1" (one). That will leed to bottom postings with the
signature beeing placed at the very end.
In case you want a combination of both (top posting but signature
at the very end of a message) you're lost with OE.
Make sure you backup your registry *before* humbleing through it!
Bye,
Freudi
Ottmar Freudenberger
> "Bible John" <johnw...@yahoo.com> schrieb:
>
>> Guys how do I change the settings so that my sig is not top posted when I
>> reply to a poster on Usenet?
>
> Are you familiar with humbling through and editing the registry, the
> heart and brain of Windows? Since you're on Windows XP SP2, there's
> a chance then.
See also http://support.microsoft.com/kb/886340/en-us (which I haven't
been aware of until now).
Bye,
Freudi
Bible Bob
<johnw...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>BB I think I will need some technical expertise here so I have crossposted
>this to the Outlook Experts.
>Guys how do I change the settings so that my sig is not top posted when I
>reply to a poster on Usenet?
>I need Outlook Express to behave like every other client I have used. I
>need the sig to show at the bottom and not the top.
The problem seems to be the two dashes "--" that proceed the sig. I
use for periods ahead of my sig but I use Forte Agent. Forte Agent is
far superior to Express and you can get it for free if you can find a
copy of "Free Agent" someplace. I might have it stoed on a cd
someplace. If I find it I will post it for you.
>
>Regarding your non technical remarks BB.
>
>"Bible does not speak of a trinity John. The word is not in the book."
>
>If you had been to bible college or at least bought yourself a theological
>dictionary you would have discovered over a half dozen words that are never
>mentioned in the bible, but whose concepts are taught in the bible. Why you
>continue to fail to understand this is beyond me. Rogue or some other
>atheist once said you were the dumbest person in these boards, because you
>have failed constantly to pick up concepts. Steve Winter understands
>concepts, but you do not. No wonder he is a pastor and you are not.
Your argument is not logical. The words "John Wolf" are not used in
the Bible; but you exist. Whether something exists is not the issue.
The fact is that trinitarian theologians themselves confess that the
trinity is not supported by the Scriptures. It came to be after the
Scriptrues were written when a bunch of religionists voted it in. God
was not allowed a vote in the election.
Character assasination by comparing me to Jerry and Steve Winters
won't work John. You simply show your ignorance and your dependence
on men to tell you what to think. You depend on theologians,
atheists, and cultists to tell you what and how to think. You just
showed that to be the case.
>
>Regardless here are a few words off the top of my tongue that are not
>mentioned by name in the scriptures.
>
>Bible
>General Revelation
>Special Revelation
>Trinity
>Omnipresence
And they are not Biblically accurate. That was silly. Why would you
use false doctrines to prove a true doctrine?
>
>I could dig through my Pocket Theological dictionary and find dozens more
>terms not mentioned in the bible. But I'd rather not.
Good, you will look less uninformed.
>
>
>
>John
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Free Lunch
>Thanks for the tips Terrell I belive I fixed it.
Nope.
Free Lunch
The two dashes and one space on a single line are the proper delimiter
of a signature. When you respond to such a post properly designed
newsreaders will strip out the .sig indicator and everything below it,
that is why the .sig separator exists.
Bible Bob
wrote:
That's what I figured they were. But John top posts and his sig
causes everything below the dashes to be stripped.
.....
BB
http://www.biblebob.net
Steve Cochran
<g>
steve
"Ottmar Freudenberger" <fre...@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:4dqb4fF...@individual.net...
Ottmar Freudenberger
> Is there a simlar one for the list of bugs introduced with SP2?
>
> <g>
Bye,
Freudi