You appealed to your professional status to justify some behavior, but when asked for more in depth information about your qualifications then all of a sudden it's behavior that everybody does -- except that you do it a little better than the average bear.
You brought up your professional qualifications. I asked what they were and how they related to your interests -- and how and in what way a profession whose representative organization endorses perversion and vice is relevant to your conduct on a thread in which you claim to defend a bona fide version of the gospel against haughty and potentially blasphemous RCs.
I'd like to ask now, why you brought them up, and who the others who know them are. I mean I know Jesus knows them, but who are the people to whom I can send emails?
The issue of my perspective as a Phd in clinical psych is only an order of magnitude or so beyond that of average folks. So you are about ten times better than average folks at knowing what people REALLY mean? And, I'm not clear, are you a Ph.D. now or are you a candidate for a PH.D.?
I received my PhD and was voted by my profs and classmates into the WHO’S WHO thing between 1978 and 1980.
I have no intention of being more specific than that.
Folks can take my perspective and comments about what in my background contributes to such a perspective at face value, or not.
If deep rooted, ?life-long? anger, hostility, bias, attitude, education, associations, dreams, fantasies or whatever precludes such an attitude or perspective on my perspective, then I have no recourse but to accept that. Goes with the territory.
But you are welcome to continue to poke away in whatever way(s) prove cathartic, or not, for you.