But I did use facts, some from the very source you cited. And, just to clarify, my comments are not exclusive to the current Pope. You have been shown to be inaccurate on a number of your own stated "facts", were you bothered by them? I didn't see an apology to Blue Dragon for your incorrect criticism of his remarks. Are you working to find just the right words?
I do not claim to know everything, unlike certain people, but I do try to back up what I say with facts that can be researched. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any online information about the budget of the Vatican so I cannot say for certain what the Pope's clothing allowance is nor how much is allotted for travel nor his various servants' salaries. All I can do, like most outside people, is voice my own observations of what is observable. And that is a right I will guard no matter how much it displeases the OCD (obsessive compulsive defenders).
you wrote:
“But I did use facts, some from the very source you cited.”
No, what you did was ignore the facts that were posted - as if one set excluded another. I did not do that. I showed the poped used very old vestments - which you denied he did: “Those elaborate hoopla and regalia clothing and headgear aren’t the threadbare and worn stuff from centuries ago, are they? Perhaps a few crowns and scepters, but the robes and shoes? Not plausible!”
And yet it is not only plausible, but absolutely true.
“And, just to clarify, my comments are not exclusive to the current Pope. You have been shown to be inaccurate on a number of your own stated “facts”, were you bothered by them?”
I have not been shown to be inaccurate about anything in this thread nor was I inaccurate.
“I didn’t see an apology to Blue Dragon for your incorrect criticism of his remarks.”
Because there was nothing I said that was incorrect.
“Are you working to find just the right words?”
No. I almost always use the right words - and hence make few mistakes and therefore rarely need to apologize. I have nothing to apologize for in this thread.
“I do not claim to know everything, unlike certain people, but I do try to back up what I say with facts that can be researched.”
I do not claim to know everything. I do claim to know Church history better than anti-Catholics because that is simply the case.
“Unfortunately, I have been unable to find any online information about the budget of the Vatican so I cannot say for certain what the Pope’s clothing allowance is nor how much is allotted for travel nor his various servants’ salaries.”
And this would matter in itself how? Putting aside your inability to find such information - because it might not be your fault - what would those allowances mean? You’re not Catholic. Why do you care? Church members donate money to support the Church. What business is it of yours? To me, that’s like an American in 2013 complaining about what it costs to support the British royal family. Why would we care? I could see if it was 1776, but it’s 2013. It has nothing to do with you.
“All I can do, like most outside people, is voice my own observations of what is observable.”
And for what reason? And didn’t you just admit you know NOTHING about this but you’re going to make statements based upon your OBSERVATIONS which you just admitted is based on a complete lack of actual knowledge? You don’t see the problem there?
“And that is a right I will guard no matter how much it displeases the OCD (obsessive compulsive defenders).”
Again, it isn’t about any right you have. John Kerry said Americans have the right to be stupid. Yes, we all have that right. Does that mean someone should be stupid?