You're seeing things that aren't there. Show me where I attributed the fraud to Catholics. I'll help you, so you don't get too confused. My remarks covered those that see things that aren't really there.
"Si palman res est, repetitio injuria non est."
No comprende, and too busy to translate it.
"You ventured an opinion. I made a statement of fact."
No grasshopper, you erred. I posted facts.
"You're seeing things that aren't there. Show me where I attributed the fraud to Catholics."
Trying to alter the argument in midstream, eh? You replied to the remark, “This is a uniquely Catholic thing and I'm not sure why,” by saying “They (Catholics) use imagery in their stories, which largely come from the imagination, not reality . . . I said Photoshop on this one, becsuse it is. The whole beam of light and smoke was applied to the photo. Just like the CtoC folks, they (Catholics) like to promote the illusions.”
Only ignorance can support such arrogance.
The bigoted, offensive, and false statement to which I referred is just above, that “…they (Catholics) like to promote the illusions.”
“No comprende, and too busy to translate it.”
That sort of intellectual laziness probably accounts for a lot.
“No grasshopper, you erred. I posted facts.”
You posted a bigoted, offensive, and false slur of Catholics, and your intellectual laziness shows how you got that confused in the first place.