Narses has a few “comments” in his pocket, and regularly copy-pastes them in response to non-Roman Catholics.
These comments are directed to the commenter, personally. They speak of the motives and character of the commenter, personally.
One is an image that communicates that the commenter is a hypocrite, that they are a pot calling a kettle black. That is, by definition, a personal attack against the character of the commenter. This does not further the conversation, but facilitates a degradation of the conversation by impugning the character of the commenter.
Another that he uses regularly is an image with the words “one trick pony.” That is not an engagement of ideas, but a personal insult, impugning the character of the person commenting. It does not further the conversation, but personally ridicules the commenter.
I’m all in favor of a robust conversation. But if I’m going to be asked to restrain the personal insults, then Roman Catholics like Narses and Cronos and others much be restrained from personally insulting those with whom they disagree.
And not a peep from such "knights" as we see here on this thread -- and they wonder why the animosity now?
Pictures, like statements formed as questions, are rarely "making it personal."
"Are you a heretic?" is not making it personal. "You are a heretic" is making it personal (mind reading.)
In the same way, if the poster had said "your posting history is like a one trick pony" it would NOT have been making it personal.
Don't read things into what the other guy posts. Or, if you can't do that, then ignore his posts altogether. There is no rule that just because someone pings you or sends you a Freepmail you are obligated to give him a hearing.
Remember the old Religion Forum adage, i.e. when a poster has ammunition he doesn't resort to spitwads.