Replies

“deliberate distortion of the truth and or lacking intelligence it is yours”

False witness.

“as you charge me with lying due to your apparent inability to makes yourself clear - or admit guilt”

False witness.

“First you carelessly make the fallacious statement”

Carelessly? That would mean that it was unintentional, a mistake, which demolishes your silly counterclaim of malice.

Thanks for acknowledging that my misstatement was an honest mistake. The ancient Romans had a proverb: quandoque bonus dormitat Homerus (Even the great Homer nodded.) You, though, insist that any stubbing of the toe proves…well, anything you want it to. Malice, prevarication, lack of intelligence, cannibalism…

“And yet after this was exposed, your only response to my assertion that this was as “another parroted dubious claim”

I first acknowledged that my statement was mistaken, and expressed regret. But let’s not let the facts get in the way of a good flame.

“or it infers that my exposé of your prevaricating propaganda is what is spreading error.”

You mean it implies. The reader infers. In this case, erroneously. The statement is simple and clear, and only malice could generate such a tortured inference as yours.

“Finally when cornered you blamed your old age and infirmity, admitting you “misspoke,” but followed that with distinguishing it from the professional liars one encounters.”

So? You find something objectionable in my acknowledgement of my error? There is just no pleasing some people. BTW, I don’t recall using the word “professional.” Did I, or are you just rewriting my comment to make it seem less reasonable?

“asserting there never has been or is a scintilla of anti-Protestant bias on FR”

Well, sad as it is, there is no getting around it here. You are restating my position to make it seem less reasonable. Shame on you.

“citing the Donation of Constantine besides the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.”

Citing a problem that was cleared up ***centuries*** ago. What in the world would make you think it appropriate to beat people with that stick?

“But true to form, you retort , “I have been wondering how you came to be in possession of so much disinformation.”

That was not a “retort.” It was a free-standing comment, independent of any particular slur you might have uttered.

“And which i dare say “anyone of moderate or higher intelligence” would normally see as a denial that the Donation was a forgery”

Do you really dare say that? Astounding.

“or an example of an inability of a FR to be coherent”

In the immortal words of Daffy Duck, “I demand that you shoot me now.” As I am the only person in the history of writing to set down a sentence that might lend itself to misinterpretation, and as this is such a heinous crime, only the firing squad could wipe out this stain.

“And yet when i conclusively substantiated…No wonder you threatened to ignore me!”

Threatened? I should think you’d be tickled. I know I would be, if I woke up and discovered that I only dreamed you.

That said, this entire paragraph is completely incoherent. There are so many false premises scattered through it that one must despair of divining the writer’s intent. If I were to apply your methodology, I would have to conclude that this is proof that the writer is lying. But I can’t. I can’t accuse someone of lying unless he really is. I can’t respond to an accusation of lying by trying to create the impression that the accuser himself lied, when only the most tendentious misinterpretation of his remarks allows even such a weak attack.

“Yet when i went over this with you”

Good grief, is that how you see your hateful attacks?

“rather than admitting the obvious”

So, no matter what I think my intent was, it is “obvious” that I intended something else entirely. Thanks for the clarification. Do I get to decide what you intend to say? And if I do, does my opinion override what you thought your intent was?

“explaining that you find it “unpleasant to try and converse with someone who is both malicious and stupid, and is blissfully unaware of either condition,” but that this does not apply to any poster on FR or that it could.”

So? If the shoe fits…

“A poor attempt at tongue-in-cheek at best”

So now you think yourself competent to judge my sense of humor. Amazing.

Actually, though, it was not “tongue-in-cheek.” It was a demonstration of the fact that the rules allow personal remarks, as long as one is careful to couch them in indirect terms. And, of course, it was a report of my observations. (And yes, I am competent to make such observations; and no, you are not.)

“while then you come close to exampling malice”

Do what?

Oh, my goodness. That sentence fragment is unclear. That must mean that someone is lying.

“dismissal of my reference to the fallacious Donation really refers to ‘the dishonesty of bringing up a long-dead, ancient kerfluffle in an attempt to sling mud at the One True Church’”

Perfectly true, and quite straightforward. I don’t know what your problem could be. If a person had a problem with this statement, and of course this couldn’t be true of any FR poster, but if someone who doesn’t post here had a problem with an identical statement, I would have to wonder if that non-FR poster simply lacked the intelligence to keep up.

“but in-credibly charges me with dishonesty when it is you who have exampled this by your fake claims and damage-control denials!”

I’m still waiting for you to cite a “fake claim” that I did not promptly acknowledge. Your repeated insistence that my attempts to explain where you went wrong in your lust to defame me are “damage-control denials” is nothing more than the malicious substitution of what you wish I had said for what I really said.

“as the more you attemptted to be an escape artist the more your insolence has been displayed”

You are my superior in no way. That being the case, your use of the word “insolence” is a malicious and gratuitous insult. Your knee-jerk response will be to find some remark of mine that might be interpreted as a malicious and gratuitous insult, and gin up some sophistry purporting to demonstrate that two wrongs make a right. It really makes me tired.

“devotion to Rome”

Are you a time-traveler? Did you just get here from the 13th century? Just about everything you think you know on this subject is wrong. Catholics don’t have “devotion to Rome.” Silly, silly, silly.

“while charging bias”

And once again you restate my position incorrectly in the attempt to make my position seem less reasonable. You couldn’t even close with a true remark.

It would be totally unreasonable to become exercised over a person’s bias in favor of his own religion. And, in fact, I have done no such thing. But some people follow the flamer’s creed:

Turn someone’s generality into an absolute. For example, if someone makes a general statement that Americans celebrate Christmas, point out that some people are Jewish and so anyone who thinks that ALL Americans celebrate Christmas is stupid. (Bonus points for accusing the person of being anti-Semitic.)

Turn someone’s factual statements into implied preferences. For example, if someone mentions that not all Catholic priests are pedophiles, accuse the person who said it of siding with pedophiles.

Turn factual statements into implied equivalents. For example, if someone says that Ghandi didn’t eat cows, accuse the person of stupidly implying that cows deserve equal billing with Gandhi.

Omit key words. For example, if someone says that people can’t eat rocks, accuse the person of being stupid for suggesting that people can’t eat. Bonus points for arguing that some people *can* eat pebbles if they try hard enough.

Assume the dumbest interpretation. For example, if someone says that he can run a mile in 12 minutes, assume he means it happens underwater and argue that no one can hold his breath that long.

Hallucinate entirely different points. For example, if someone says apples grow on trees, accuse him of saying snakes have arms and then point out how stupid that is.

Use the intellectual laziness card. For example, if someone says that ice is cold, recommend that he take graduate courses in chemistry and meteorology before jumping to stupid conclusions that display a complete ignorance of the complexity of ice.

I think I’ve had enough of this for the nonce.

False witness.

Living in denial. In all this i happily will let others judge based upon the evidence. Denying that your referred to my citation of the Donation as being disinformation indicates either deliberate distortion of the truth and or lacking intelligence. And note that true to form, you are the one who resorted to attribution of motive, and do not like the evidence being point at you.

Carelessly? That would mean that it was unintentional, a mistake, which demolishes your silly counterclaim of malice.

That initial fallacy testifies that the lack of intelligence charge you made best applies to you, despite your denial. It is dumb to uncritically parrot such a basic claim that you could have easily checked out, something i learned long ago, and try not to repeat, but you are the throwing stones.

Thanks for acknowledging that my misstatement was an honest mistake

I am giving you the benefit of any doubt, yet as said, after this was exposed, your only response to my assertion that this was as "another parroted dubious claim" was that "The Internet is a wonderful resource. It also provides fallacious information for the malicious to use in spreading error."

If you want to attribute motive as you are exceedingly wont to do, then trying to avoid admitting this by such a response, which again, either means you were the malicious one using the Internet in spreading error, or fellow RCs were, or infers that my exposé of your prevaricating propaganda is what is spreading error, is quite dumb. Or insolent.

You mean it implies. The reader infers. In this case, erroneously. The statement is simple and clear, and only malice could generate such a tortured inference as yours.

There you go again. Responding to evidence that refutes your fallacious statement with "The Internet is a wonderful resource. It also provides fallacious information for the malicious to use in spreading error" is hardly an admission of error on your part, and testfies to your unwillingness to admit your error, while what is tortured is your denial of what your response most clearly conveys, and instead asserting that its contrary meaning was simple and clear! I gladly will let the entire Internet world to judge.

So? You find something objectionable in my acknowledgement of my error? There is just no pleasing some people.

Well yes, your avoiding admitting what i substantiated as error by referring to the Internet providing fallacious information for the malicious to use in spreading error, then attributing it to old age and infirmity when you seem to have no problem writing tortured defenses of yourself, while a simple search such as will you hear all the bible by going to mass daily would quickly answer that question in the negative. If you are unable to check out claims then do not make arguments that require such research. Likely you would charge malice or lack of intelligence as being the cause if a Prot did so.

BTW, I don’t recall using the word “professional.” Did I, or are you just rewriting my comment to make it seem less reasonable?

You sure are good at not doing simply searches before opening your mouth, and instead inferring error driven by ill motive. Do you think i supplied a link to your post for no reason in my reproof ? Yes, like it or not, you did say, "it is still not in a class with the professional liars one encounters."

“asserting there never has been or is a scintilla of anti-Protestant bias on FR”

Well, sad as it is, there is no getting around it here. You are restating my position to make it seem less reasonable. Shame on you.

What? That was not in quotation marks, but this additional careless statement , which requires omniscience of you, "There is not and never has been a scintilla of anti-protestant bigotry on FR," is not different from saying you said, "there never has been or is a scintilla of anti-Protestant bias on FR." Your objection simply results in RC absurdity being exposed for more to see. .

Citing a problem that was cleared up ***centuries*** ago. What in the world would make you think it appropriate to beat people with that stick?

You are the one who made a broad statement, and which easily could refer to alleged or proven historical errors by Prots, while i could have cited more recent lies by Catholics, such as in sex abuse cases. Which is not restricted to Rome, yet my statement was in response to the issue of honesty and pro prevaricators which you raised to distinguish yourself from. And as you are known to focus on Prots, i provided outstanding examples of what were indeed example of professional prevarication. In any case, it was your apparent denial of this that became the issue.

That was not a “retort.” It was a free-standing comment, independent of any particular slur you might have uttered.

Come on dsc! You responded to my and cited my reference to the Donation by saying "I have been wondering how you came to be in possession of so much disinformation. I’ve been reading a book called “The Da Vinci Hoax,” and now I think you got a lot of your information from “The Da Vinci Code”!

Trying to spin this into "a free-standing comment, independent of any particular slur you might have uttered," digs the hole you put yourself in even deeper, while the slur was on your part, not me!

“And which i dare say “anyone of moderate or higher intelligence” would normally see as a denial that the Donation was a forgery”

Do you really dare say that? Astounding.

I certainly did and welcome the whole world to see it, and your continuing attempts to deny your denial, even by resorting to "argument by outrage!"

In the immortal words of Daffy Duck, “I demand that you shoot me now.” As I am the only person in the history of writing to set down a sentence that might lend itself to misinterpretation,

That is not the problem, but your denial of it saying what it most obviously conveys, and then attributing not agreeing with you to malice and or stupidity, rather than just admitting the Donation was indeed a fraud in the first place, like as you should have forthrightly admitted your fallacy about hearing the whole Bible in 3 years of mass going.

And now you resort to playing the victim card, when it is you who first posted a specific fallacious claim, and would not apologize until pressed, and then pointed the finger at professional liars, and then responded to my evidence of such by saying you wondered how i came to be in possession of so much "disinformation," likening it to the Da Vinci Code, and then claimed that anyone of moderate or higher intelligence would see that this response was (somehow) not denying my charge of forgery, and how unclean you felt as i was the one lying, and both malicious and stupid. And then forgetting your own words and instead (true to form) suspecting me of rewriting your comment! Is this what Catholicism fosters?

“And yet when i conclusively substantiated…No wonder you threatened to ignore me!”

Threatened? I should think you’d be tickled.

More denial. Saying you guess it will end either when i stop lying [meaning exposing your fallacious charges] "or I resume ignoring you. Guess which?" is indeed a warning to penalize. Since this has resulted in more exposure of the evidence of your false statements, then you should have do as you threatened.

I actually suspect some RCs actually see their function is to take up time with such sophistry, and rather than read and respond to the rest of your tortured attempts to absolve yourself and charge ill motive for being exposed, at this point it is I who am not going to continue with this, as your fallacious as well as absurd statements and insolent denials and have been well exposed, and all can see them via the links in my last post .If another RC want to take your side that you did not engage in denial, then i will engage them, while will answer to God for your words. As it is i think any self respecting RC would be embarrassed by you, unless they do that same.

Congratulations, you have made it to the top level of the marginalized RC poster list.