I have found that many protestants on these threads claim to be conservatives and view MSM reports with a degree of skepticism, as they should. Unless those same MSM sources present a negative story about the Catholic Church. Then it is "All hands on deck, Battle stations, Man the torpedoes, and fire at will."
Prime example: There were several threads about the priest that was murdered and the other that was assaulted. On one of them less than 10 posts in the comment was made about a jilted gay lover. No evidence to suggest that was in the article but: Hey it's the Catholic Church lets get our shots in. I will be the first to condemn the parish in Baltimore that is celebrating "pride" month, I was all over the Father Phleger incidents and even directly contacted his Bishop asking that he be censured and have his parish taken from him.
But here is the thing I will not make a snap judgment based media reports that contradict each other.
Which means what? What use is all of that in a postmortem sort of backwards glancing discussion?
No "sane conservative" would make a snap judgement you say? And how long have you actually been with us here at FR? hmm?
Perhaps you have not been paying attention, for there was one freeper who had the joking tagline much as; "proudly posting comments without reading the article, since 1999" (or some past year).
It's like a running joke around here,where we joke about ourselves. You may think yourself entirely above that sort of thing...but I don't think so, for I have been witness to all sorts of things which you have said here on this forum...
People make snap comments without reading the article, or reading through the thread, pretty much every day around here. It comes with the territory.
To now say "no sane conservative" would do so, if that were not disqualified from holding "truth" for reason that it be example of the "any true Scotsman" type of logical fallacy and thus balderdash, would have made it out to be that many freepers here are indeed insane.
Do you really want to go there? Perhaps some rewording is called for, if you wish yourself to be a voice of sanity in recommending that "snap judgements" be tempered. If they were to be done away with entirely -- that would make you out to be the biggest party-pooper of the decade, taking all the fun out of FR. :^')
If it be that one of your own "sacred oxen" was gored...and you wish to decry that sort of occurrence; then learn from that, and mind your own horns which are often so casually poked at others, and "things"...and then after enough demonstration of real restraint on your own part (instead of the head-fake kind which comes across as just so much posturing for effect) ...I just may take you a bit more seriously.
People here snark and shred. We are FAMOUS for it. Hello? knock-knock..is anyone home in that head of yours? Where have you been all your life, I do wonder...
You did demand proof that the Home Babies were not baptized, having singled that portion of mention out of one my previous comments here.
I provided two links which made the claim that was so...but added on my own the observation that that aspect is still not entirely proven, while you yourself have avoided providing anything to the contrary, or anything else contrary to any other points of discussion which I touched upon regarding this difficult matter.
Saying "lots of words" can be called for, such as my adding in the above -- that merely for reason mention WAS made in more than one article that the "Home Babies" of the Tuam facility were said NOT to have been baptized, since sources or reason for that particular item of mention were not included -- then it is not always safe to assume that information framed in such manner to be entirely valid, though for the fact that such is included -- may possibly indicate that someone somewhere must have made the claim, having their own reasons for believing that to be part of the bigger picture, though attribution as to who, and why they would do so was not mentioned, nor was there mention of any follow-up on the part of newspaper article writers to determine if that small portion was indeed true -- or not.
So why is it that you can speak of such things and somehow it is important, yet when I myself do so (without any prompting from you I should add) then it is just "lots of words"?
As you did otherwise just say; "...there are so may articles that are contradictory..." continuing from there as to preferring to "...avoid snap judgment on this matter." (NOW you tell us? ha!) and "...I prefer to wait till all the evidence is in"
Excuse me -- but the various evidences which are already in were the very sort of things which I made some effort to mention, then mull over possibilities, which is part of a process of making s-l-o-w-e-r judgements rather than the "snap" t type, while yourself in all of this are entirely ducking away from providing to myself any acknowledgement that I DID supply to you some basis for the very thing you questioned me about --yourself demanding from me an answer.
Now you turn to (try to) rend me once again. Hey thanks. I should have expected as much, huh?
You got an answer, providing what you demanded -- with some included and reasonable qualifying commentary included in the hopes that none around here would be further mislead by myself, due to my own choice of words. Is that enough? Why spit at it, as first reaction? Don't tell me why for that is one of those rhetorical sort of questions for you to ask yourself -- while standing in front of a mirror.
Spare me all the whining of the perpetually offended "Catholics", many whom show little to no restraint whenever opportunity arises for themselves to leap to conclusions, make snap judgements, openly speculate as to "bad" stuff being part of the untold story, etc.
It goes that-a-way just about as much around here, whether you recognize that or not.
Go police your own troops for a change, rather than cheering them on, high-fiving and back-slapping the worst and most bigoted comments and commentators among the FRomish crowd, here at FreeRepublic.
Then get back to me about how people make "snap judgements" and the like.
For I will venture that if you attempted to reel in some of the worst of the worst among the bigot-crowd of Roman Catholic freepers (not all Catholics are bigots, and not all Catholic freepers are bigots -- but many do continually demonstrate that they are) then they will likely "snap" at you pretty much like they have for YEARS now, snapped at me.