Bill Donohue: Over the line?

dotCommonweal ^ | David Gibson

[Petronski]

Quix can’t answer for himself?

A question for the ages?

[Judith Anne]

You present your side. We present ours.

i>It's called DEBATE!

Wrong! We post our side, you come ridicule, denigrate mock everything you don't understand, and the RM lets you; that is NOT debate.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Quix can't answer for himself?

lol. More Catholic policing of the threads and comments, eh?

From the looks of this thread tonight, Quix has done a great job of fending off the vapid, whining criticisms lobbed at Protestants.

[Petronski]

How is a question “policing?”

[1000 silverlings]

It's called DEBATE!

Notice that real trolls do not like debate. Their true purpose is to harass and cause havoc on a site. They really just crave attention. They add nothing to the discussion, just wait to pounce on whomever comes along. They are online 24/7, showing that they have no other purpose in life.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You are entitled to your opinions of what we believe, but you are not entitled to have "your own side" of what we believe.

Catholics define what Catholics believe. You're not required to believe it or even like it, but if you redefine it, you are bearing false witness.

ROTFLOL! Where did you learn that farcical definition of discussion?

Hillary?

[Judith Anne]

I posted to Quix. I simply asked if he couldn’t answer for himself. Is that a problem for you?

[Trailerpark Badass]

Not to be crude, or anything but it seems to me that every time the Pope passes gas, someone posts a thread on it.

Of course you're trying to be crude.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

roundandroundandround

[Petronski]

When you seek to debate what I believe—as in: ‘I believe x’ ‘No you do not’—you have actually rolled far past debate into tyranny.

[Petronski]

When you falsely tell me what I believe, it is not debate, it is tyranny.

You don’t decide what I believe, I do.

If I insisted a thousand times that you worship syphilitic dragons, I would be a thousand times wrong.

[Petronski]

That is your plan: debate by falsehood and attrition.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

asking a *few* Protestants to use Christian civility is so impossible

I don't see Protestants around here being "uncivil" or breaking the RF rules by making personally offensive comments about individual FReepers.

I see Protestants discussing the issues, while some Catholics feel so threatened by any disagreement with Rome that they cannot debate without flaming the threads or asking for new rules or closing down the forum entirely.

[P-Marlowe]

Of course you're trying to be crude.

Maybe... a little.

But then your I think that if we were to strictly follow the Religion Forum rules, your Freeper handle probably shouldn't be allowed on the Religion Forum.

But I suspect when you picked it out you were, of course, trying to be crude. :-)

[Petronski]

I see Protestants discussing the issues, while some Catholics feel so threatened by any disagreement with Rome that they cannot debate without flaming the threads or asking for new rules or closing down the forum entirely.

Again, you define "discussing the issues" as falsely telling us what we do or do not believe.

You are as tyrannical as Monsieur Cauvin.

[Judith Anne]

Do you have an example of any of that, or is it just more hot air?