I did NOT comment on something I know nothing about. I commented on the proposition that there is a difference (and, I think, an important one) between saying, "You lie," and "I don't believe you." I think I know almost as much as to be known about that.
Agreed, and the proposition was taken out of context.
I do not understand and cannot imagine what NL meant when he said you cannot buy an encyclical, I have bought several (and even read some.) Not understanding, I did not get involved.
Only when you understand what motivates a person to make hateful "shoot from the hip" remarks such as that will you understand what was meant.
When I don't understand, I tend to resort to the basics, such as the difference between a statement about my belief and a statement about somebody' intention.
Please understand I am well aware you are an honorable person and I am in no way questioning your integrity.
I simply believe you were off base in this instance.
It wouldn't be the first time.
In counselling and in the care and feeding of rugrats, there is what I call, "hooking the adult." It sometimes does wonders to suggest to the child or 'client' that they try using their rational minds, if any.
I'm not so sure how much it helps a fight to take a side. I MAY help to invite people to think.
Of course, when they would rather fight, "my work here is done."
AND when I see a principle being made victim to a fight -- when somebody attack the true principle rather than, say, it's less than true application, I will tend to go for defending the principle.
I felt like whatever else was going on, that was confusing to me, one thing I 'knew' was the difference between the two propositions.