OK, lets put aside the Freeper Wars mentality, and re-state the original post. Remove "Catholic" and replace it with "Christian," (which obviously Christians should be doing regardless.
Then, address the issues raised here in that new light:
Rhetorical Questions to myself and other CHRISTIAN Apologists here:
After reading numerous threads of what I term the "Freeper Wars," I'm going to state an assumption (which might well be terribly wrong) then ask a few rhetorical questions.
If a "Freeper Wars" thread (you know the type, starts out as a thread of interest to CRISTIAN freepers, then turns into the standard anti-CHRISTIAN posts with attempts to defend the faith by the regular CHRISTIAN Apologists here) is several days old and several hundred posts long, the "undecided" will be few.
Your apologetics are not intended to convert those whose hearts and minds are closed (although, by the Grace of God it does indeed happen). They are intended to illuminate the intellect and soul of those still open to Truth, and still willing to learn. I doubt that many of those make it to that point in threads here, i.e., when threads are 200 to 300 posts or longer, several days old, etc.
Therefore, your time is being spent only on those you are directly responding to, when they do their own self search.
Is that an effective use of your time and talent? Or would prayer, not words, be more effective at this point? Are we trying to win souls, or points of debate?
Just a few thoughts I ask myself constantly on these types of threads, i.e., where is my time better spent, reading to my kids and spending time with my spouse, or trying to convert those late on a thread whose minds and hearts are hardened? Are there enough lurkers late in a thread to make it worth the amount of time and intense effort to defend the faith that these threads usually entail late in their usual progression?
Some thoughts on apologetics from C.S. Lewis, whom I mentioned earlier, and in the direction I thought you were going originally (and seem to be going now):
Each of us has his individual emphasis: each holds, in addition to the Faith, many opinions which seem to him to be consistent with it and true and important. And so perhaps they are. But as apologists it is not our business to defend them. We are defending Christianity; not "my religion". When we mention our personal opinions we must always make quite clear the difference between them and the Faith itself. God in the Dock
One of the great difficulties is to keep before the audience's mind the question of Truth. They always think you are recommending Christianity not because it is true but because it is good. And in the discussion they will at every moment try to escape from the issue "True - or False" into stuff about a good society, or morals, or the incomes of Bishops, of the Spanish Inquisition, or France, or Poland - or anything whatever. You have to keep forcing them back, and again back, to the real point. Only thus will you be able to undermine ... their belief that a certain amount of "religion" is desirable but one mustn't carry it too far. One must keep on pointing out that Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and if true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important. God in the Dock
And, with your indulgence, one more...
Here is a door, behind which, according to some people, the secret of the universe is waiting for you. Either that's true, or it isn't. And if it isn't, then what the door really conceals is simply the greatest fraud, the most colossal "sell" on record. Isn't it obviously the job of every man (that is a man and not a rabbit) to try to find out which, and then to devote his full energies either to serving this tremendous secret or to exposing and destroying this gigantic humbug? God in the Dock
As an additional observation, Lewis commented numerous times that his efforts were not to "make new Anglicans, but new Christians." He felt his calling was to get them into the great hallway of the Faith; once there, they could each choose the doorway (denomination) where they were most comfortable.
Who is our enemy?
...
Not Muslims, who are often more loyal to their half-Christ than we are to our whole Christ, who often live more godly lives following their fallible scriptures and their fallible prophet than we do following our infallible scriptures and our infallible prophet.
The same is true of the Mormons and the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Quakers.
If they're spreading a false Gospel, they're enemies of Christ trying to blind their audience. The other thread was posted 09/10. In order to have a "truce", all sides have to lay down their arms. Are you willing to stop defending catholicism?
Having a common enemy does not make us allies.