Facts appear to be an unecessary inconvenience for some.They do. For example, you accused me of calling you a liar (post 25). I then explained that “I have not called you a liar, . . . “ and explained why I had not. (post 28) You then go on to whine about how you consider my posts are “as an assault on my honesty and motives. Perhaps I misread him, perhaps you did. . .” even after I clarified my intent, you seem unwilling to accept my explicit statement I’m not calling you a liar.
I explicitly stated otherwise, and you won’t believe it. Were I to steal a page from your playbook, I would have to claim you were calling me a liar.
I have been accused of attacking the Pope (I have not), of being schismatic (I am not) and of "trolling" for schismatics (I do not). Are there facts to base the accusations on?Are you going to admit where you attend Mass or not? So long as you refuse to answer any questions, your comments here lack credibility. You don’t have to identify where you go to church. You can use silence as a shield. But you cannot use silence both as a shield to defend yourself, and then attack others with it as a sword because you won’t discuss the facts that would be needed to determine your schismatic or non-schismatic status. Silence should not be used as both a sword and a shield.
patent +AMDG