[HossB86]

Have you not read that RnMomof7 is not the author of the piece? Care to argue your points with the author?

If others happen to agree that’s one thing. But your post seems to ascribe the authorship to RM7.

Hoss

[paladinan]

Have you not read that RnMomof7 is not the author of the piece?

Of course, I did. But she introduced and praised the piece here, did she not? Are you suggesting that it's forbidden for me to ask questions of anyone but the original author? That's... odd. And I do think I was civil in my questions/comments, wasn't I... especially since RnMomof7 had no scruples against posting a direct criticism of the Church to Whom I belong? I have no animus against her... but it's bizarre for you to suggest that I not broach the subject with the one who brought up the topic in the first place!

Care to argue your points with the author?

If you can persuade the author to come to this thread, I'd be happy to debate the points with him/her. Otherwise, no... sorry. I have little enough free time as it is, without chasing down every random website of every last author obliquely referenced on FR. I assume that, if someone introduces and defends article [x], then that someone shouldn't be surprised at questions/comments about it... and nor should other random post-ers (such as yourself). I'm not quite sure why you took this [i.e. my comments to RnMomof7] up as an issue, anyway.

If others happen to agree that’s one thing. But your post seems to ascribe the authorship to RM7.

I have no idea, whatsoever, how you get to that conclusion. It doesn't follow from anything I said or did. Again, what's your particular beef, here?