Posted on 03/31/2004 6:17:43 PM PST by Coleus
You really ought to consider very carefully your reasoning for re-posting a year old thread relative to the validity of the article content. When it was posted it was a fraudulent 'news story'. Reposting the same thread suggest you thought FReeper review of inaccuracies a worthwhile exercise. I remain baffled as to your motivation here.
What on earth are you talking about?
Why did you pull this thread out of its bogus trash bin by responding on May 15,2005 to a post written to you by Dudoight on April 2, 2004?
Reviving a bogus thread....for what?
Reviving a thread? I guess I'll now bttt it everyday just to make you happy.
You ask, "what do you mean bogus? you're the only [C]atholic who thinks so."
The article's clueless author, blindly accepted her single-source sodomite-friendly list, without checking it out! Her source wrongly listed a church the source named "Christ the King, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart -- Santa Clara" .
Dangus attempted to cover for this lie suggesting,
No church or parish by any of these names has EVER existed in Santa Clara.
Further, ArrogantBustard's Post #55 also casts a questionable light on the veracity of the 'list' promoted by the article's author.
You need to revise the number of Roman Rite Catholics who question the accuracy of the list by 100%. There are at least two of us now; perhaps because we are the only two who made the effort validate it.
You might also like to speak with your Confessor about the sinfulness of promoting a lie ( this article ), by attempting to give standing to sinners.
You have not addressed my question about your motivation for dredging up this article for FReeper re-consideration. One year to respond to a post. It's got to be a FReeper record.
You have not addressed my question about your motivation for dredging up this article for FReeper re-consideration. One year to respond to a post. It's got to be a FReeper record. >>>
I think you need some counseling.
And if you have a problem with the content of the information on this thread, I suggest you take a breath, count to 10, then rationally e mail Les Femms and Lifesite.net and ask them since it was their information that was posted on this tread.
I'll leave it to FReepers to make whatever judgments they may about the content of your posts.
You misread the post to conclude that the author was claiming that there was a parish named "Christ the King, Our Lady of the Sacred Heart." I was only trying to correct your misreading: the web site, Life Site, formatted the listing to make it slightly easier to read; so, it could be seen that they intended to refer to separate parishes named "Christ the King," and "Our Lady of the Sacred Heart."
I have no dog in this race, and have no intention of legitimizing or attacking the article. I was merely correcting your misreading. Period. Your assertions that I was taking part in a cover-up of a lie is offensive and unwarranted.
The entirety of our differences over the original posting, therefore, are these two points:
* I believed that Life Site had made an error, whereas you presume mailicious intent.
* "Christ the King" and "Sacred Heart" parishes are in Santa Clara COUNTY, California, not the small community of Santa Clara, California. Mea Culpa.
St. John's in Philadelphia? I used to attend daily mass there periodically for several years. A beautiful old church. I am going to call them, ASAP!
(It's all a fraud - they're not interested in real religion, which means a relationship of loving obedience to God. They just want to pollute that which makes them feel uncomfortable in their lives of vice.)"
Exactly. You hit the nail on the head. Well said!
When an author presents an article to the public, the burden of truthfulness lies with the writer not the reader, Coleus. Your willingness to act as an apologist for the author is queer.
Dangus took your indefensible defense a ridiculous step further, suggesting "....malicious intent....." on my part, because I took exception to the "Santa Clara" listing.
Dangus then argues in the absurd telling one and all the author meant to include the word County after named locations on the list. How does Dangus know this? Dangus decided to withhold that bit of his/her revelation. My complaint focused on the lack of correct information assembled by the author, who in turn failed to verify her source - presenting the same as legitimate to her readers. She wrongly accepted as fact the list compiled by Life Site.
I'm willing to bet this author was at the top of her government school journalism class, where fact and fiction are used to support the spin.
>> Dangus took your indefensible defense a ridiculous step further, suggesting "....malicious intent....." on my part, because I took exception to the "Santa Clara" listing. <<
I did no such thing, and be assured that I do not believe you have malicious intent. What I said was that "you presume mailicious intent." Meaning that you seem to think that the poster and maybe some others have bad intentions.
>> Dangus then argues in the absurd telling one and all the author meant to include the word County after named locations on the list. How does Dangus know this? Dangus decided to withhold that bit of his/her revelation.<<
I said "Mea culpa." In English, "My fault." Meaning that *I* had mistakenly confused the tiny Santa Clara town for the huge Santa Clara county. I have no knowledge of whether Lifesite news made a similar error, and did not suggest that they did.
And he still hasn't written to Lifesitenews and Les Femmes, must be afraid of the cold hard facts.
LOL!!!
May your judgment come swiftly.
See, your true colors are coming out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.