- 24 Apr 2018 19:58
#14909003
<yawn> No, you should. Watch:
No it's not. That report is only about the Diocletian persecution, a completely different subject, and not the Edicts at all. Your claim is just baldly false.
No, that's false: only the persecution was religious persecution. That's why the Wikipedia article you linked was the one on, "Diocletian PERSECUTION" and not "Edicts of Diocletian." You tried to change the subject, and I caught you red-handed.
GET IT???
Why are you disingenuously trying to pretend that the Edicts -- which largely concerned economic policy -- were the same as the persecution?
No, you are the one trying to change the subject, as I just proved.
Zamuel wrote:You probably should do a little more reading about those "Edicts."
<yawn> No, you should. Watch:
Here's a fairly detailed report on them.
No it's not. That report is only about the Diocletian persecution, a completely different subject, and not the Edicts at all. Your claim is just baldly false.
It seems the Edicts were a massive religious persecution
No, that's false: only the persecution was religious persecution. That's why the Wikipedia article you linked was the one on, "Diocletian PERSECUTION" and not "Edicts of Diocletian." You tried to change the subject, and I caught you red-handed.
GET IT???
... I don't doubt you want to wiggle some sort of "Feudal" implication into it ... so why don't you try?
Why are you disingenuously trying to pretend that the Edicts -- which largely concerned economic policy -- were the same as the persecution?
your argument wiggles like a hula girl who's had to much poi
No, you are the one trying to change the subject, as I just proved.