The Low-Information Evangelical, Part 2

At least try to make sense when you bear false witness.

At least try to make sense when you cut parts of a statement away to make some joke.

Good luck with his game, and don’t let him get hurt!

I intended to badger present-day Catholics?

Do other Freepers annoy you? Tired of being badgered??

Oh, he did not!

Out of the abundance of the frustration; the heart speaks.

Or something purty close to that...

Did we all have an eventless Labor Day?

Filled with wienies and burgers and beans?

Not me. I’m on a diet of sorts. “No more hot dogs for you,” per orders of the wife and daughter. Many other favorites on the “no more” list. Tough love. I think its starting to work, but it has changed my perspective on holidays.

Peace,

SR

“Good luck with his game, and don’t let him get hurt!”

Thank you. There were three minor injuries, but my son was not hurt.

“At least try to make sense when you cut parts of a statement away to make some joke.”

Come on, it was funny.

Yes, my household are rolling about the carpet holding their sides.

Or are they?

It was my b’day. Had a nice dinner w/dear hubby @Bonefish! No wienies, burgers OR beans.

Well happy birthday BB!

The Lord bless thee, and keep thee:
The Lord make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The Lord lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace

...the very hairs of your head are all numbered

Thank you! The Lord bless you, too.

It’s plenty obvious that “vitriol” is in the eye of the beholder. Certain vitriolic types never seem to see their OWN! ;o)

Which explains a lot in how they treat others.

Do as I say, not as I do.

Yes.

No.

Worked on fixing up the house.

Happy Birthday.

I quit counting, too.

Here’s a long form discussion on the Topic.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0120.html

2 Macabees certainly plays a prominent role in Matthew 22:23-33

Thank you for your question

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.

But; did they WIN?

;^)

Despite several turnovers, yes, they won 14-6. Thanks for asking.

Thanks! I never thought in my twenties to ever BE this old. ;o)