# Question for my Presbyterian Friends???



## etexas (Mar 30, 2009)

I did not wish to derail a running thread and poll with a silly Anglican question so I am going to let you educate me on the sideline. What IS the difference between being 100% WCF and being 100% under? (I think this is how the ? was presented in the Poll). Again forgive me if this is a dumb question but what is the semantic difference between Holding 100% and being Under the WCF 100% or am I TOTALLY misreading???


----------



## Davidius (Mar 30, 2009)

He was asking about supporting the WCF 100% or supporting it less than 100% (i.e. subscribing fully or only partially).


----------



## etexas (Mar 30, 2009)

Davidius said:


> He was asking about supporting the WCF 100% or supporting it WCF less than 100% (i.e. subscribing fully or only partially).


OH! Makes sense! Sorry I must have misread! (BLUSH) I thought it read being 100% UNDER, in my mind interpreting a submission.  OK, I did a reread on the poll! I did not read it correctly! Someone please do DUMBEST PB Member thread now! I nominate myself! DOH!


----------



## Davidius (Mar 30, 2009)




----------



## etexas (Mar 30, 2009)

Davidius said:


>


Nothing to see here folks...keep moving,! David! We are fellow Anglicans! "Fer Shame" quit laughing! In FAIRNESS it is allergy season and the ONLY thing I can take is Benadryl so I was a tad blurred in reading that! Etexas has yet another fantasy about a Life Rewind and Delete button!


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 30, 2009)

We're not laughing *at* you Max. We're laughing *with* you.


----------



## etexas (Mar 30, 2009)

MrMerlin777 said:


> We're not laughing *at* you Max. We're laughing *with* you.


Thank you Don! That makes me feel SO much better!


----------



## MrMerlin777 (Mar 30, 2009)

Glad to be of help Max.


----------



## etexas (Mar 30, 2009)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Glad to be of help Max.


----------

