“Now it tells me a great deal that you think I misused the word.”
No, it doesn’t.
“I didn’t.”
Yes, you did.
“It’s a legitimate metaphor describing one’s response to some sort of demand for behavior.”
Perhaps you have confused me with someone else. I have not demanded any behavior of you.
“But you came along and wanted me to not talk about the failed fable of transubstantiation.”
Could I have some Twilight Zone music, please?
That never happened. Not in this world.
“To give in to your demand for silence (the “shut up” to which I referred)”
There was no such demand.
“It has never been my intent to attack you personally. Only your errant theology.”
That’s another similarity with the liberal style of confrontation. Do it—do the heck out of it—then deny it.
“when you have it has been hostile and never going to substance.”
I may have been hostile, but you probably just overlooked the substance.
“But no, all you are to me is a three letter handle that is always hostile to me when I critique Catholic doctrine.”
It is interesting that you regarded a calm repetition of truth as hostile.
“I am confident you wouldn’t sit by silent either if someone you dearly loved was being defamed, even if the defamers didn’t know they were saying hurtful falsehoods.”
It is very important in such a situation that you be right before you start attacking people. You are not right.
“Though I am confident in my beliefs, I am always ready to learn new things as well.”
Well, actually, no, you aren’t.
“I don’t know you from Adam, nor your posting history.”
What brought that subject into the discussion? I didn’t mention it.
“I bear you no animus. We can do this peacefully.”
Wow. Just like talking with liberals on Compuserve in the early days.