17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 572:
Line 572: +
→-SDA page: glad
The SDA page is now well written and informative, (good writer) and though i think the controversies as well as the changes from the 1950's interaction are important (the apologetics index link helped), i am sorry you got some of the overflow of my grief from the original condition.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:49, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
The SDA page is now well written and informative, (good writer) and though i think the controversies as well as the changes from the 1950's interaction are important (the apologetics index link helped), i am sorry you got some of the overflow of my grief from the original condition.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 13:49, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--I'm glad that we're agreed [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 23:00, 11 July 2009 (EDT)
== Random Question ==
== Random Question ==
Are you the same R. J. Jensen that studied the fallacy of the NINA signs!?!? If you are I admire your work!!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:57, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
Are you the same R. J. Jensen that studied the fallacy of the NINA signs!?!? If you are I admire your work!!--[[User:IScott|IScott]] 09:57, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--that's me. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:40, 10 July 2009 (EDT)
::thanks--that's me. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 13:40, 10 July 2009 (EDT)