Lets make Friday 'Joke Day'!

Half Fast said:
That must be some sort of special NPR math. The C of E was founded in the 1500s. How'd they get 1,400 years?
Click to expand...
You should be ashamed of yourself for questioning such a fine, upstanding, unbiased source. I also read that stat on another website, therefore, it is VERIFIED.
 
Before condemning it is probably useful to read the article.
Sarah Mullally was confirmed as the archbishop of Canterbury, and is the 106th archbishop in that post.
That is where the number comes from. This position way predates the English crown or the Church of England.

Tim
 
tspear said:
Before condemning it is probably useful to read the article.
Sarah Mullally was confirmed as the archbishop of Canterbury, and is the 106th archbishop in that post.
That is where the number comes from. This position way predates the English crown or the Church of England.

Tim
Click to expand...

So did the Church of England have a female leader 1400 years ago?

Uh, no, it did not, because it didn’t exist yet. The headline is in error.
 
Half Fast said:
So did the Church of England have a female leader 1400 years ago?

Uh, no, it did not, because it didn’t exist yet. The headline is in error.
Click to expand...

The headline states "For the first time in more than 1,400 years, Church of England gets a woman leader".
How is that incorrect? The archbishop of Canterbury was established over 1400 years ago, per a web search which sent me to Wikipedia it was established in 597 AD. The position was established by Pope Gregory the Great as the head of the church of England (Anglo-Saxons).

Tim
 
tspear said:
Before condemning it is probably useful to read the article.
Sarah Mullally was confirmed as the archbishop of Canterbury, and is the 106th archbishop in that post.
That is where the number comes from. This position way predates the English crown or the Church of England.

Tim
Click to expand...

To quote you earlier in #21,144"

"This is supposed to be the joke thread."
"But, this conversation has become way too serious for a joke thread."

:biggrin:
 
tspear said:
The headline states "For the first time in more than 1,400 years, Church of England gets a woman leader".
How is that incorrect? The archbishop of Canterbury was established over 1400 years ago, per a web search which sent me to Wikipedia it was established in 597 AD. The position was established by Pope Gregory the Great as the head of the church of England (Anglo-Saxons).

Tim
Click to expand...

Because it refers to the leadership of the C of E 1400 years ago. No such thing.

It’s like saying of Kamala Harris, “For the first time in 1400 years, the United States gets a woman VP.” The USA is only 250 years old, so the statement is ridiculous.
 
robin ardoin said:
I was listening to that album earlier in the week. JT put on one of the best live shows I’ve seen.
Click to expand...
Nobody believes me anymore when I say that, especially considering my taste in music. It was like an intimate party with 10,000 of my closest friends.
(Stormwatch tour, 1979)

Nauga,
in the shuffling madness
 
nauga said:
Nobody believes me anymore when I say that, especially considering my taste in music. It was like an intimate party with 10,000 of my closest friends.
(Stormwatch tour, 1979)

Nauga,
in the shuffling madness
Click to expand...
Under Wraps tour, 1984, Lakefront in New Orleans. I think Ian Anderson's voice, like a fine wine, got better with age. Seeing a live band that tight with such complex arrangements was amazing. Makes me wish I was able to see Frank and the Mothers play live.
 
Half Fast said:
Because it refers to the leadership of the C of E 1400 years ago. No such thing.

It’s like saying of Kamala Harris, “For the first time in 1400 years, the United States gets a woman VP.” The USA is only 250 years old, so the statement is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
But it would be fine if she said, "for the first time in history"... which is longer than 250 years...

But we get what you're saying.
 
@Half Fast

The analogy is false. The USA did not exist 251 years ago.
However, the church of England did exist 1400 years ago. It was a part of the Roman Catholic church.
Even the Church of England which helps to maintain the Wiki page shows their history starting with the archbishop in the 597AD.
en.wikipedia.org

History of the Church of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So, yes the headline is correct.
 
tspear said:
@Half Fast

The analogy is false. The USA did not exist 251 years ago.
However, the church of England did exist 1400 years ago. It was a part of the Roman Catholic church.
Even the Church of England which helps to maintain the Wiki page shows their history starting with the archbishop in the 597AD.
en.wikipedia.org

History of the Church of England - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

So, yes the headline is correct.
Click to expand...

Hey mods ... can you move this subject to over to: the "not worthy of it's own thread" thread

:deadhorse:
 
Go ahead. Milk it for all it's worth...
 
It behooves us to speak kindly about ruminant animals.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top