"There are masses of posts from you on this great long thread. It's unreasonable to expect people to check and cross reference things we've said and doing some kind of textual analysis. "

There is a gulf of difference between expecting people to cross-check, etc., which I don't expect, and refraining from calling people prostitutes on the basis of some hazy and inaccurate feeling of timings which you can't be arsed to check. If I called you a prostitute you would expect me to have bloody solid grounds for saying it, otherwise you'd expect me to keep my big mouth SHUT. You are defending the indefensible. Please don't make me think that it's two Catholics closing ranks. I expect better of you than that. I actually expect better of myself for thinking that thought. However, it's still nowhere near as bad as calling an honest bloke a prostitute.

"As for the rest, there's a real disagreement between us. What you see as indoctrination I see on the whole as perfectly appropriate and valuable. Essentially, where you see false I see true. Point by point or generalisations."

OK, so you can't address this. I get that. You think it's true that Jesus was born of a virgin. That he turned water into wine. That he came back from the dead. If you see these things as the truth you really should be able to support them. I think they are not true, and I'm more than happy to support that, point by point. I don't really care what people see as true. Or false. I do care that some people, including you, see no problem in peddling unsupportable myth to children as truth. I think that if there was a God he'd regard that as sinful in the extreme. Perhaps you could tell me, even if you don't like dealing in things point by point, what is so wrong with telling children the truth. I think I might have asked this a few times now. I await.