I’m sorry but it is recorded as an inquisition. That is the word. You’ve stated that this did not begin until the 13th c., when quite obviously there was one in the 12th.
Annoying, isn’t it, this picayune verbal hair-splitting? Hopefully your being on the receiving end will moderate such behavior.
“I’m sorry but it is recorded as an inquisition.”
You didn’t even call it that. It’s an inquest. I posted a link for you to where you can BUY IT. It’s a property inventory. It is not an examination or trial of anyone in regard to the faith. THAT would be an inquisition as we all know it and have been using that word to describe it in this thread.
“That is the word.”
You didn’t even use that word. You said “inquest” and that’s what it was.
“You’ve stated that this did not begin until the 13th c., when quite obviously there was one in the 12th.”
False. How on earth can you say that when I linked you to the ACTUAL PUBLISHED RESULTS WHICH PROVE IT WAS AN INVENTORY OF PROPERTY and not an examination or trial of anyone in regard to the faith?
“Annoying, isn’t it, this picayune verbal hair-splitting?”
Would you rather be struck by LIGHTNING or a LIGHTNING BUG? There are only three letters separating the two ideas, but I bet most people would choose to be hit by the bug and not the bolt of electricity. Gee, what do you think, RC? WORDS MATTER. An inquest of property is not what ANYONE is talking about when they talk about an inquisition in this thread.
“Hopefully your being on the receiving end will moderate such behavior.”
That’s hilarious. You confuse inquest and inquisition and confuse one century with the one that came two centuries later and you think this is about moderating my behavior in “picayune verbal hair-splitting”?
Well, in any case, you were wrong as usual. No matter how “picayune [the] verbal hair-splitting” that isn’t likely to change.
You DO realize whom you are talking about?