[St.Chuck]

Then the disagreement should end at that point, rather than deteriorating to vicious name-calling.

That's the second time you have alluded to that. What's your motivation? I have only been complimentary or gently corrective on this thread. Afraid I'm gonna blow up? LOL. Surely you're not getting overly sensitive on us.

[sitetest]

Dear St.Chuck,

I allude to what is posted on this thread. Not all who have taken your position have acted, at all times, anywhere near as charitably as you have. Not all you have taken my position have acted charitably, at all times, either.

I've personally been attacked in this thread as one who "would like to strike a match and light the kindling under the cauldron in Boston". Others who take my position have not posted charitably, as well.

I suppose it's a pet peeve of mine. It seems that we ought to be able to air our disagreements without being disagreeable. It seems to me that one may have the faith to move mountains, but that if one is without charity, one is worse than useless.

I'm willing to denounce what you think. I'm willing to denounce what you say. I'm willing to denounce what you do.

I'm unwilling to denounce you.

It seems that folks get mixed up about this stuff, and I don't like it.


sitetest