Quoting Michael Scott (luv@inoz.net):

I really thought luv-talk was an open forum. Sorry if I broke in on a private conversation between you and Trent.

Once again, you just went out of your way to attribute to me a (rather stupid) view that I don't hold and never articulated. At this point, I am left on the horns of an unfortunate dilemma: I can either guess that you are doing this deliberately as a passive-aggressive tactic, or that you suffer a truly horrible reading-comprehension problem. Neither interpretation is pleasant, and I greatly prefer to think well of people, but I'm not seeing a third choice. As an Internet denizen for many decades, and (as you would see if you looked around) a listadmin for many LUGs _and_ maintainer of the User Group HOWTO for the Linux documentation project, I'm actually NOT ignorant about how discussion mailing lists work, and am fine with how they work -- and nowhere did I suggest or imply that my conversation with Trent was 'private'. Moreover, I actually said the contrary! You know, my even having to reiterate the totally bleedin' obvious is absurd. Sir, do you _honestly_ have nothing better to do than to continually attribute to me absurd positions nothing at all like what I said? Is this a typical Michael Scott conversation? I ask because it continues to seem a total waste of time. Maybe you should seek other hobbies.

Without going back to find your exact quotes.

Small peeve: 'Quote' is the verb. 'Quotation' is the noun.

.....I will if you want me to... I've got the distinct impression that my opinion was not welcome, simply because your post was directed at Trent.....

Less 'unwelcome' than bizarre, unjustifiably emotive, almost completely unresponsive to what I said, and riddled with almost as many logic failures as a Russell Coker ideological broadside. I didn't (and don't) seek to be rude to you, someone I just met, so I would not say 'unwelcome', but it would be fair to say I say no substantive contribution in your emotive screed, and a large, noisy waste of time that I could have well lived without. Maybe you were having a bad day. Or three.

YOU cited a VERY clear obligation for disciples of Christ to go out to all the world and make disciples.

Um, no. Repeating that continually does not make it so.

... I think you're a very intelligent guy and that is pretty clear for you.

I'm sorry, Michael, but did you just call me a liar?

https://www.gotquestions.org/great-commission.html

Pointing me to doctrinal apologetics is not responsive. I am not a member of your, or anyone else's, church, and pulpit-thumping is not a useful way to talk to me.

Acts 1:8 is a further reference from that link.

There is nothing there urging proslytising. Did you not bother to read it, even?

So one reference, in one of four gospels, isn't good enough for you?

Is it to _you_? How so? If this was a key requirement Jesus abjured onto all followers, how would it be possible that only one biographer out of four noted and mentioned it? Isn't that at best extremely shaky, leaving aside the very elliptical and allegorical wording? Maybe you're fine with riddles and obscure meanings. Me, I'm just an uncomplicated offshoot of Scandinavian peasants, and expect important things to be stated clearly and consistently. And I'm going to have to call this quits. If you wrote more, sorry, but it was well past my annoyance and time-wasteage limit for today.