To argue the "facts" and "arguments" offered by the schismatics is to give the schism the attention it craves so that it may pick off a few poorly catechized stragglers so weak as to abandon Holy Mother the Church for such weak tea as personal and cultural preferences. That rejection is a rejection of the promises of Jesus Christ to His Church (the one in Rome, the one with a legitimately elected pope, etc.) Can you spell A-P-O-S-T-A-S-Y? You need correction, perhaps hierarchical punishment, not arguments which would give you the false impression that you are somehow on equal footing with the hierarchy.
BS: Are you jealous that JP II is a published author? It is understandable that you would probably not be published at all unless it were by some schismatic house like Angelus.
BS: By the way, you repeated yourself in mentioning "slanderous false accusations" since "slanderous" necessarily involves "false," truth, as in the case of most posts which are burrs under the schismatic saddle, being a complete defense to any charge of slander or to any other form of defamation. BTW, we write here. Written defamation (if it IS defamation) is libel, not slander. Be sure to complain about how many times I have used clearly true terms such as schism and excommunicated.
What are your OTHER FR screennames? I don't think you ever answered that one.
You say, "the questions you pose need [not] engage the attention of actual Catholics to the point of wasting time responding as though there were anything rational posted by you."
Then you go on for twenty paragraphs wasting time responding. You apparently don't know what it is you're saying. In fact, I knew the content of your screed even before I read it--which is too bad. Your posts used to be witty and informative. Now you only pile up insults and shed no light on any of the issues. That's fine with me, I can give as well as I get, but it doesn't advance anybody's knowledge about what's happening in the Church. This suggests a real lack of conviction on your part and an acknowledgement that the facts are not on your side. If they were, you would cite them. In fact, you can't--because the Pope himself never explains his actions. No theology was ever presented by Rome to justify its allowing Buddhists to pray at our altars--it was simply something the Pope wanted to do. No reason was given for elevating a heretic like Kasper, either. It sort of "just happened", as though elevating such men were a matter of course in the Catholic Church. Fine. But these are heterodox actions just the same--and leaves papal defenders helpless to explain them rationally. So they do what you do--hurl insults.