So now i am lying because i took your response at face value as a denial ("disinformation") of my assertion that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery? Them then tell me how your response says otherwise:
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine"; I have been wondering how you came to be in possession of so much disinformation. I’ve been reading a book called “The Da Vinci Hoax,” and now I think you got a lot of your information from “The Da Vinci Code.”
You cite a source i provided, and then refer to so much disinformation, and that you think i get lot of my information from “The Da Vinci Code.” How then is this not a denial of my assertion that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery??? And that i am lying about you by taking this at face value? Does anyone else want to judge this matter (besides violating forum rules)?
Or do you want to blame this your old age again?
“You cite a source i provided, and then refer to so much disinformation, and that you think i get lot of my information from “The Da Vinci Code.” How then is this not a denial of my assertion that the Donation of Constantine was a forgery?”
Not that this would apply to any poster on FR, of course, but I find it unpleasant to try and converse with someone who is both malicious and stupid, and is blissfully unaware of either condition. Not, of course, that anyone on FR is both malicious and stupid. That could never happen, and if it did, we wouldn’t be permitted to comment on it.
To those of moderate or higher intelligence, my comment speaks to the dishonesty of bringing up a long-dead, ancient kerfluffle in an attempt to sling mud at the One True Church.