[tiki]

The problem is that no anti-Catholic ever defends their articles on substance. They just repeat the same old lies and accusations, ad nauseum and that is supposed to suffice. They never defend scripture, nothing. It is pointless to debate them because they never defend the substantiations they just throw out their red herrings, change the subject, obfuscate and nauseate.

[wagglebee]

The problem is that no anti-Catholic ever defends their articles on substance.

How can they possibly defend this article on substance?

This article attacks certain popes (and a few non-popes) on matters of character, not theology. However, huge portions of this article are demonstrably FALSE (i.e. that John XXIII was a pimp, murderer, adulterer and pirate was "defended" by saying that it referred to an anti-pope; however, the article never states this, so the average uninformed anti-Catholic bigot will conclude that it refers to a mid-20th Century pope AND the writers, probably deliberately, OMITTED dates for this non-pope presumably to push this lie).

[OLD REGGIE]

The problem is that no anti-Catholic ever defends their articles on substance. They just repeat the same old lies and accusations, ad nauseum and that is supposed to suffice. They never defend scripture, nothing. It is pointless to debate them because they never defend the substantiations they just throw out their red herrings, change the subject, obfuscate and nauseate.

Same old. Same old. A broad brush hate filled attack on "they" with no attempt to illustrate the claim.

It's time for a new rant. YAWN!