XPost: alt.atheism, alt.agnosticism, sci.skeptic   
   XPost: alt.christnet   
   From: me@nothere.biz   
      
   On 28-June-2014 11:50 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
   > On 28-June-2014 11:47 AM, felix_unger wrote:   
   >> On 28-June-2014 4:16 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:   
   >>> On Thu, 26 Jun 2014 13:38:54 -0400, the following appeared   
   >>> in sci.skeptic, posted by James <1rilu2@windstream.net>:   
   >>>   
   >>>   
   >>>> Not all claims of religious text are untestable. For instance,   
   >>>> archeology has many times supported the Bible's 'claims'.   
   >>> Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. That aside, any   
   >>> book of myths contains some truths. Several of the stories   
   >>> about actual places have been confirmed (or were already   
   >>> known); it's the claims which involve actions by deities   
   >>> which haven't been.   
   >>   
   >> shouldn't one of the those 'whiches' be a 'that'?   
      
   or maybe both!   
      
   >> just asking. I'm always confused about the correct usage between the   
   >> two terms.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > I suppose I should have googled first..   
   >   
   > http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/grammar-rules-and-tips/when-   
   o-use-which-or-that.html   
   >   
   >   
      
      
   --   
   rgds,   
      
   Pete   
   -------   
   election results explained: http://ausnet.info/pics/labor_wins2.jpg   
   “People sleep peacefully in their beds only because rough   
   men stand ready to do violence on their behalf”   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)