Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor

[ttxpress]

yo/ftr, do any of us Canuckistanis deny that sanctification is emotional?   On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:38:46 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Eh?  Got relatives in Canada eh? ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: November 24, 2005 12:08 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] corrector/revisor (hey DaveH--a new TT record for concatenating responses, eh? :)   On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:49:56 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Bill is [sanctified]," is presumed, and, at best, [though eternal], (is) now; therefore, the [sanctified-ness] is transitory [for now] which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present tense '[sanctified-]ness' is incomplete   On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:21:34 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: "Bill is [sad]," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the [sadness] is transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present tense '[sad]ness' is incomplete   On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:52:51 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:   myth ("Bill is happy," is presumed, and, at best, (is) now; therefore, the happiness is transitory which also squares with human experience; therefore, the present tense 'happiness' is incomplete)   On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:02:32 -0500 "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: || > Present tense does not necessarily indicate incomplete action.  > "Bill is happy," this does not mean that Bill is incomplete in his > happiness. ||