[Mad Dawg]

The metaphor, and that's what it is, in #1083 seems to me to pertained to more than just papal infallibility.

Further in 1069 you wrote:
There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.

I would characterize that as pretty much going astray from the particular issue of papal or conciliar infallibility. I doesn't advance the argument but it seems to be a restatement and a generalization of the thesis. It seems to me that to lash out in what pretends to be a discussion and then claim that that's not what you were talking about will tend to lead to misunderstanding.

This led to, and I think justified, my perception that you were attacking on two fronts, one limited to the question of infallibility and the other a general slam on a purportedly intentional ambiguity in catholic teaching.I understood the hockey rink metaphor as pertaining to the general assault.

I guess there is some rhetorical benefit in attacking on two fronts (if the goal is winning) because if an argument is addressed on one front one can claim it was intended for the other.

Shall we now go poison some more wells?

[OLD REGGIE]

The metaphor, and that's what it is, in #1083 seems to me to pertained to more than just papal infallibility.

Since my reply to Alamo-Girl concerned her reply to your non answer concerning the single topic of infallibility it is almost impossible to confuse the topic. Congratulations!

Further in 1069 you wrote:
There is no teaching of the RCC which is so clear it cannot be denied, modified, or reinterpreted as required.

1069 was written by you. Again congratulations are in order.

Shall we now go poison some more wells?

Sure, why not. I'm used to it. In fact at this moment I am drinking a Shipyard Brown Ale in lieu of water.