And As I asked HarleyD if annalex had said "Calvin" instead of "Calvinist", then what?
I think annalex was hornswoggled, perhaps inadvertently.
The first mention of Calvinism is make as part of a negative criticism of a liturgical text. It is neither discussing nor condemning Calvinism, it's discussing a piece of liturgical text and its possible motivation.
Then Alex Murphy asks for clarification. Up to that point while Calvinism had been mentioned, it had not been discussed, I think. So Alex {whose tag line -"(FR Member Alex Murphy: Declared Anathema By The Council Of Trent)" - does not suggest the most irenic of intentions} started the discussion of Calvinism and then said that since Calvinism was being discussed the Caucus status should be forfeited.
He even says that had another answer been given to his question, he wouldn't have asked for the forfeiture.
I think it's an interesting problem.
Annalex (#23): MAYBE those guys over there who wrote that text were trying to make a distinction pertaining to Calvinism.
(silence, the conversation goes elsewhere.)
Alex Murphy (#28): Was this distinction you mention one of approval or one of disapproval?
annalex:Since you ask, we have a disgreeement with Calvinism.
Alex Murphy: See there? They're discussing us behind our backs! They should forfeit caucus status.
I was not the one who raised the "Calvinist" issue. I personally don't believe in Caucus threads nor excluding individuals from any subject except where a person is being irreverent. I believe we are responsible to God for discussing all issues about our faith. This is the way that God intends for us to grow.
That being said, I do respect others for wishing to focus on the nuances of particular issues without getting pounded upon by those outside a particular belief. I try to avoid those threads or limit my comments to understanding the view. Having the word "Caucus" in the title helps me; but it will be a sad day when we start labling everything "caucus".