Man alive, if i applied that to the questions coming RCs, esp. so as to disallow embedded anti-Prot. bias (though one RC omnisciently declared there never has been any by a Cath. on FR) then i think hardly any would qualify!:) Perhaps. But really what it comes to is intent, does it not? I suppose if one's sole interest is to play "gotcha" games then by necessity the interrogatories must conform to the game in order to reach the desired outcome.
Thus, the structure of the question is this:
In order to conceivably arrive at the this:
And of course when the individual has the question put to them goes "outside the lines" they are to be labeled an obfuscator or engaging in evasiveness. Whatever it takes to keep them within the confines of the game.
Which in reality is nothing more than this:
A trip through someone else's mind. A construct of their own making whereby the boundaries are ever-shifting 
Through the rabbit hole. A dangerous proposition.
Perhaps. But really what it comes to is intent, does it not? I suppose if one's sole interest is to play "gotcha" games then by necessity the interrogatories must conform to the game in order to reach the desired outcome. Thus, the structure of the question is this: In order to conceivably arrive at the this:
You are referring to here , and i suspect there is some PM activity behind your response, and which is a rather desperate protest to justify avoiding answering fundamental questions, which most every RCs has, or the outcome of doing so, but which are actually required in order to clarify and deal with the presuppositions behind the most prevalent RC polemic, expressed in varying forms, which is to assert, "the Catholic church gave you the Bible," meaning you have no right and cannot be right in opposing her.
This is typical RC recourse i have seen over the years, especially when their attempts to support traditions of men with Scripture fail. Expanded upon it basically argues that, the Catholic church goes back 2000 years, whom Christ promised never to leave and to lead into all Truth, and gave you the Bible, thus only it can assuredly tell us what it means, and you have no authority correct her with your "private interpretation" of Scripture, which cannot be right or provide assurance.
Thus it is necessary to clarify the presuppositions behind this premise for determination and assurance of truth,
Which is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ?
The fact that affirming this basic reasoning will result in exposing its fallacious nature does not justify not answering it, any more than no answering the related question by the Lord which He asked in response to the questions of where He obtained His authority. Mk. 11:27-33)
Meanwhile you still have avoided answering
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3212840/posts?page=3045#3045 to you.
