One can make lots of quotes say what one wants as long as one gets to choose what to leave out.
The charge was a blanket charge -- a blanket that still has covered none of the data presented in support of it.
Unless terms like "all", "not all", "some", "one", and "none" are views as rhetorical flourishes, that is. To me they have meaning, so that if I am accused of consigning non-Catholics to Hell, I take that to mean "ALL" non-catholics WILL go to hell, because it is no scandal if I suggest that SOME MAY go to hell. But all the quotes adduced in evidence of the charge imply or explicitly state some exception.But that wasn't the charge.
To me, this is "bait and switch". One charge is made explicitly, another vaguer and implicit charge is defended. To those who see no important difference between "some" and "all" I have nothing of a logical or argumentative nature to say.
Where was the blanket charge? You are implying things that aren't there. If I added such words to a Catholic quote, you would chastise men. Besides the challenge by numerous posters was to find one example (not a blanket statement), and it was found. But not one will admit it, so there is no point on going further. Besides, I really did not intend to start such fighting, so I appologize for the uproar my initial post caused. I just meant to make the point that both neither side is innocent, which I think the constant hounding on this thread proved.