I’m quite careful to avoid wording my satire etc. in a personally assaultive way. I’m not flawlessly perfect in any respect but I work earnestly quite hard at that.
Some others seem to work earnestly hard TO personally assault.
I don’t know what is so DIFFICULT about
SOME
RC reps distinguishing between two basic concepts
SAME vs DIFFERENT
but it would be appreciated if they would get up to speed on those basic concepts.
Working earnestly hard to avoid wording that is personally assaultive is DIFFERENT from working earnestly hard TO BE personally assaultive. I’m sure Magnificent Magical Mary knows such basics. Perhaps she could be consulted. I’d love to hear her comments on it.
In terms of my arrival on this thread . . . I had absolutely no individual in mind and still mostly don’t. I’m aware of Dr. E and some other frequent posters on this thread after I arrived but only loosely. And I don’t carry most of them in active memory.
I certainly have NOT been following ANYONE around on the thread or the forum. Just not my style. If they show up in my awareness, I may recall other factors related to them . . . but often, not many. I just tend to hold fewer and fewer things in association vis a vis folks I don’t have a LOT of intense CURRENT interactions with.
Of course, there are those who seem to delight in poking a very affronted personal, harsh, mean stick in my eye whenever I get within 150’ of them . . . those I sort of recall more quickly MOST of the time.
No . . . I’m confident that if a communciations class; a linguistic class; a sociolinguistic class; a psycho-linguistic class were to take on the subject of the Protty vs RC rep ‘discourses’ on FR, there would be some VERY lop-sided statistics rather unflatteringly pointing at very outrageous ROUTINE HABITS of the RC reps very far above and beyond anything similar on the Protty side.
Seems to go with the edifice’s construing itself as chief Inquisitor or chief pontificator or chief Christian or some other such nonsense.
What you write is not satire. Also, it is clearly Protestants who have difficulty making proper distinctions here:
1) Several Protestants could not figure out how there could be different kinds of excommunications even after it was pointed out to them. They were unable to make the proper and obvious distinctions.
2) Posting a photo of German clergy giving a Nazi style salute (if that’s even what it was) is not proof of anything other than the fact they gave a Nazi style salute. When asked what case the Protestant poster was trying to make, he refused to even make a substantive reply. Could he make the proper distinctions? Apparently not.
3) Invincible Ignorance is now struggling to make proper distinctions in and about his own statements.
Why are the Protestant posters here so unable to do what you say we can’t do?
“No . . . I’m confident that if a communciations class; a linguistic class; a sociolinguistic class; a psycho-linguistic class were to take on the subject of the Protty vs RC rep ‘discourses’ on FR, there would be some VERY lop-sided statistics rather unflatteringly pointing at very outrageous ROUTINE HABITS of the RC reps very far above and beyond anything similar on the Protty side.”
I don’t think so. As I outlined above, the Protestants here are even having difficulty writing what they actually mean, making rational arguments, answering questions, etc. Also, it is painfully obvious that no matter what a class at a university would decide (and why would you rely on a liberal institution like a modern university filled with ignorant teenagers and left wing profs anyway?) the Protestants have little claim to the truth here.
1) None actually launched any serious refutation of the article at the thread opener or since.
2) Luther was little defended throughout the article.