[dsc]

“As has been mentioned many times, if you (or any poster) is too thinskinned for the open threads, they should not be on them.”

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin said, “Accuse others of what you do.”

The fang and claw crowd wants to deflect attention from the circumstances of this set-to, which are these:

This particular kerfluffle began with one or more of the fang and claw protestants hitting the abuse button over something I said.

It started with *them* being thin-skinned. To hide this, they immediately started slinging accusations that *others* are being too sensitive.

Occasionally I am motivated to comment on the bias in the moderating here. I don’t really know why, because it is the very tone the management wants.

In the final analysis, though, it was not I who brought the moderator in with false accusations of “mind reading.” It was the fang and claw protestants that wanted to ensure that the strongest arguments against them are stifled, and, whether he did so knowingly or not, the moderator became their cat’s paw.

Remember Sinkspur.

[Elsie]

This particular kerfluffle began with one or more of the fang and claw protestants hitting the abuse button over something I said.

What was it you said?

Remember Torquemada

[editor-surveyor]

Sinkspur was a catholic from Texas.

[Religion Moderator]

"This particular kerfluffle began with one or more of the fang and claw protestants hitting the abuse button over something I said."

There have been no abuse reports about your posts on this thread.

Stick to the issues.

Posts such as this one of yours, filled with false information and claims, can cause flame wars.

[Alex Murphy]

Remember Sinkspur.

Oh, we do. Believe me.

[Syncro]

I wasn't going to reply to your post to me because it seemed to be so off the wall, but now that I see the mods have let you know none of the "Protestants" turned you in for bad behavior, or even thin skinned-ness, it seems necessary to answer.

You seem to have made up a “group” here in the RF, called the fang and claw protestants and accuse them of turning you in for what, I dunno. You said it was something you said.

Which they did not do.

But apparently you believed your pronouncement so desperately that you played it forward as if it were true by saying:

“It started with *them* being thin-skinned.”
Not true, so wrong “opinions” twice.

And

“To hide this, they immediately started slinging accusations that *others* are being too sensitive.”

Wrong "opinion" again, third time.
There was nothing to hide as your premise has been shown to be false.

Many *others* were being too ‘sensitive’-—thinskinned as you noted my comments in that area with the quote at the top of your post to me:

*“As has been mentioned many times, if you (or any poster) is too thinskinned for the open threads, they should not be on them.”*

What's wrong with that. It sounds like good advice to me?

Then here is your “final analysis”

“...it was not I who brought the moderator in with false accusations of “mind reading.” [well good for you!] It was the fang and claw protestants [already shown to be not an issue, didn't happen] that wanted to ensure that the strongest arguments against them are stifled

What a concept! The posters arguing against the assumption of Mary don't seem to have a problem debating from a very strong scriptural basis. (or lack of scripture as the case may be.) Plus the Protestants and other born again Christians love to hear strong Catholic arguments for their positions. They are few and far between, and always countered quite well...imo.

I haven't seen any strong arguments FOR accepting Mary being assumed except those from non scriptural writings.

Non Catholic Christians don't give those writings the weight of wisdom from God, they (we) use the Bible