Hello.... Elsie... You've been registered at FreeRepublic for almost five years now. "Please observe" that leading off a reply with italicized text sans quote marks *IS* how quotes of previous posts are usually done here. So surely you can't be unaware of the fact that posting a reply with italicized text is going to be presumed to be a quote of the post to which you are responding.
This pose is especially transparent when a quick review of your posts on other threads shows you consistently following this same convention countless times (i.e., quoting prior posts by italicizing a passage from them, followed by your own comments in normal font).
So pretending to be unaware of how your post would look if you italicized YOUR OWN parody in reply to RWP seems to be a case of bearing false witness (both against him, and in your "acting unaware" excuse for it).
Corinthians 5:20: "We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us."
Do Christ's ambassadors pretend to be quoting someone when they're not, then claim to be unaware of how their misrepresentations would be received?
Merely a PORTION of another reply was used. Over 50% was my OWN burbleing....
...which you presented in the format that is almost universally used on FreeRepublic to signal a quote of the post to which you are responding, and which you yourself use frequently when quoting.
Why is everyone so uptight here today??
Because we don't appreciate that sort of behavior.
certainly, people make mistakes in their html and one should ask for clarification before making accusations.
Ahem.
Then again, I shouldn't question someone with so much book knowledge. Secular people obviously know what's best.
I don't know about 'Christ's ambassadors', but anti-evos are notorious for mangled and misleading quotations, as you know.
IMO, it's one of the principle reasons that they aren't taken very seriously by scientists. That kind of behavior doesn't usually pass peer review.