LGBT ‘Catholic’ groups:If Pope can reverse ...teaching on death penalty, why not homosex?

LifeSite News ^ | August 3, 2018 | Dorothy Cummings McLean

[ealgeone]

I have agreed with some of the articles posted written by msgr pope. Not many, but some.

[boatbums]

Correct. (And there is no excuse for you to post caucus threads without checking to see if they qualify.

But now, even if they qualify, they can be reposted as an open forum in less than four hours of the original, like this one was done.

Do you think you OWN an article just because you might be the first to post it on a thread? Does it occur to you that some non-caucus folks might appreciate an opportunity to comment about a topic? The FR rules say that somebody can repost a thread. Deal with it.

[ebb tide]

Have you ever considered people may read threads they’re interested in??

Of course they do. That's why there are so many caucus violations.

[ealgeone]

>>Have you ever considered people may read threads they’re interested in??<<

Of course they do. That's why there are so many caucus violations.

Reading and posting are two different things. Do you seriously not think before you post??

[ealgeone]

On the other hand, there have been Catholic Caucus threads posted that did NOT obey the Caucus rules and were sneakily trying to slip past the Moderator. I'd guess that this has happened FAR more frequently here. I know I've exposed a few myself and have successfully challenged their categorization. Maybe THAT is what irks some so much?

THIS is exactly what I've seen happen from some of our Roman Catholic posters.

And then, some, when the caucus thread is removed, complain to the RM about the label being removed!

Bottom line is this....if you're posting using the caucus label....it's YOUR responsibility to be sure the article meets the guidelines.

[ebb tide]

The FR rules say that somebody can repost a thread.

That seems to be a new ruling as of yesterday.

[ealgeone]

BB: The FR rules say that somebody can repost a thread.

*******************

That seems to be a new ruling as of yesterday.

Nope. That's been around a while per some of the more tenured members of FR.

It's an unwritten rule per the RM.

[ebb tide]

One has to read first before he posts a response.

[metmom]

That seems to be a new ruling as of yesterday.

Then you weren't paying attention. It was addressed in post 41 of this thread with a link to the following.

From June of 2017

http://freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3563504/posts?page=419#419

[ebb tide]

“Unwritten rule”?

Why not?

[ealgeone]

One has to read first before he posts a response.

Yes....perhaps you should do this with the articles you post....might cut down on having the caucus label being removed.

[ealgeone]

“Unwritten rule”? Why not?

Take it up with the RM.

But I have noted the section from the RM's page where a person can link to the article that may be caucused. I took it from that you could post it if you wanted to.

[ebb tide]

Since when is four hours considered a day?

[ebb tide]

If however he is linking to an article posted by someone else - and that article was a "caucus" of which he was not a member - then I might pull the post anyway if I think it would have the affect of defeating the caucus label. Besides, he can always quote the source article directly without seemingly trying to work around the caucus protection.

[metmom]

[ealgeone]

Yep. That’s the one.

[ealgeone]

LOL!! Majoring in the minors!

[miss marmelstein]

They don’t read them - they lurk on them looking for “violations” so they can break the caucus. Not all, I’m sure, but the bunch that shows up on this thread. I’ve been a member longer than you and I know them all.

[ealgeone]

They don’t read them - they lurk on them looking for “violations” so they can break the caucus.

Paranoia will destroya.

[boatbums]

Has it ever occurred to you that just maybe we might agree with the opinions posted and would like to say so???

From my experience, "No". And this thread has confirmed it.

Now I think you are being intentionally obtuse and ridiculous! Go back and read the very FIRST comment Unlearner posted on this thread. He stated:

I'm not trying to start a debate over Catholic versus Protestant. I think we all agree on the Church's teaching and the Biblical record with regard to abortion and homosexuality, in general. I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea of the Pope changing basic Church doctrine from a Catholic perspective.

Did you GET that ET? He AGREES with the Roman Catholic church teaching on abortion and homosexuality and asked in solidarity with you and other anti-Pope Francis RCs how you think regarding what appears as changing doctrines - some of the SAME complaints you have been screaming about here every day for quite some time. So explain to me how this thread confirms that we NEVER agree on anything? Would you have demanded his comments be deleted had he voiced this on "your" thread because he isn't in your caucus? My guess is yes, you would have.

You don't OWN this article nor its subject matter. Maybe you'll learn to pick your battles a little better in time.