Thanks for the nice words. They come when needed. ;-)
In looking at the correspondence between you and AnAmericanMother, I don't see that her initial posts to you were untoward.
Her first post to you was #33. It lays out an outline of the case in favor of Venerable Pope Pius XII to counter your initial remarks that were negative toward the pontiff.
Then she asked you whether or not you were particularly well-informed on the subject, and then stated contingently that if you weren't:
“If not, that doesn't make you a ‘thinker’ as you claim. You have to have some material to work with, otherwise you're just casually repeating slander and maligning a good man.”
In that the last two statements are contingent on whether or not you're well-informed on the subject, they seem a reasonable conclusion to the post. Altogether, the post is a challenge to you to back up what you say, which is sort of a big part of what Free Republic's about.
The tone is firm and unyielding, but hardly harsh or nasty, at least not as it comes across to me.
The second post to you, before you replied to any of hers, is #35. This starts out with a monitory statement about what Catholics generally do and don't do. It isn't aimed directly at you, but it wouldn't be terribly unreasonable to make the inference.
Nonetheless, in my own view, I'd probably go with the benefit of the doubt, here, and still assume good will on the part of the correspondent.
The next sentence starts out with the statement of a conditional again, which makes me more inclined to interpret the first statement as a general statement, and not necessarily aimed directly at me (or, in this case, you).
The statement is true enough. If you haven't read up on the controversy, you're not a very engaged Catholic, at least not on this topic. Especially if you hang out much on FR!! LOL!! I don't know how many threads I've read about this in the last 10 years! Wish I had a buck for each one.
Again, the poster assumes nothing, but rather states in the conditional.
The tone is a little more strident, but from my perspective, tends toward the milder of side of what is permitted at FR, especially in the Religion Forum.
Your first post at #47 was:
“Ahhh...there’s no better Catholic than a converted Catholic. gotcha.”
As your current post to explains, although it isn't exactly meant as a slur against converts, it is, nevertheless, a negative comment about the poster's status as a correspondent in the discussion. One might rephrase it as, “There go those converts again!”
As a response to AnAmericanMother's posts, it offers no counter-evidence, no counter-argument, no nothing other than a [negative] statement about your correspondent. It's just an ad hominem.
That's the breakdown in the conversation, in my view. When folks move to ad hominem arguments, it isn't unreasonable to infer bad things.
Now, you don't want to get into it with AnAmericanMother to defend your initial remarks.
It isn't unusual on FR for folks to request a defense of one’s remarks, but I know of no rule that requires a poster to answer the request with an actual defense. Sometimes, folks make casual remarks without wanting to get into a big debate. Or at least, I know I often make quickie little remarks on threads without wanting to get into a big, long, drawn-out debate.
But inferring from your first post some hostility to converts wasn't unreasonable (especially since your meaning, if not precisely hostile, wasn't really a positive one).
And I don't think that AnAmericanMother's request for you to offer some defense of your initial post was unreasonable, either.
Finally, keep in mind that there have been uncounted threads about the sanctity or lack thereof of Venerable Pope Pius XII on Free Republic, and many, many, many folks in these parts have used these threads to attack venomously and unfairly not only Pope Pius but the entire Catholic Church. Some of these attacks have been scurillous.
So, please accept my own apologies if I gave offense, but your initial post seemed to be a potential lead-in to another such attack.
sitetest
If I spoke too sharply, I apologize.
As sitetest observes, this issue has been covered over and over again on FR. I was a little too quick to assume ill intent, blu, because I assumed that you were familiar with the facts and at least some of the previous FR threads.
But if you haven't looked at the question since 1992, then my assumption that you were wilfully ignoring the facts was wrong.
And for that I apologize.
Thanks for the incisive review! I appreciate the time it took you to do that. Your points are valid. However, you missed the one underlying point of my posts, albeit unstated. No one Catholic is better than another one. None of us are in a position to judge another. I take offense when my Catholic-ness is called into question, and I LOATHE when Catholics fight amongst themselves. Oh, yeah, and I hate being talked down to! LOL, who doesn’t?
(Also, some of my sparkyness today may be a result of a highly insulting email that someone sent me, as a result of this thread. The only reason to send such an email is because the sender knows the mods wouldn’t let it stand. So, yeah, I think I’m a little defensive...however, I am trying to maintain my manners. And I hate Catholics eating their own!)
Again, thanks for the review! Great job (meant very sincerely)