Bill Donohue: Over the line?

dotCommonweal ^ | David Gibson

[P-Marlowe]

Do you really believe no Catholic has ever said Protestants shouldn't be posting Catholic threads?

I post on Catholic threads about once every Blue Moon and when I do, more often than not I'm told to shove off by someone.

Ok, my style is to rub people the wrong way, but I do think that some people need to either get thicker skins or find a Catholics Only Forum where they can post without fear that someone might question either their doctrine, their practices or their sanity.

This is supposed to be an OPEN FORUM. Those who are so easily offended by either challenges or levity, should seek refuge from somewhere other than the Free Republic Abuse Button.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

(Dr E:) Why should they complain about non-catholics posting non-caucus threads?

You're misquoting me, Judith. I didn't make that statement; Fichori made that statement in post 431 (and I know you consider yourself a stickler for accuracy.)

This is one of the problems with not discussing the topic at hand, but continually going back and back and back over the same old you said/he said/she said territory.

It gets old really fast, and mistakes are made, as you just did.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

AMEN.

[1000 silverlings]

Well that is so true Marlowe, so what is the real reason for the supposed indignations? There are many threads where they can get their fill of debate and intense theological discussion. Then there are the Catholic caucus threads where they can post away to their hearts content and no one will challenge them on error, or anything else. Then there are threads where they can troll along looking for real and imagined, excuses to be outraged. If you notice, some will spend all off their time on one or another.

[Fichori]

"Catholics Only Forum" [excerpt]

That would be a catholic caucus.

There is no sniping allowed from caucus threads however. ;)

You can read about caucus threads on the Religion Moderators homepage.

[P-Marlowe]

[LordBridey]

Yes, it is very very funny.

I'M NOT TELLING YOU WHAT YOU BELIEVE.I'M TELLING YOU WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT YOUR BELIEFS, AND WHY I BELIEVE THEY ARE WRONG AND MINE ARE SCRIPTURAL.

It is an odd hobby. I can't imagine spending so much of my time telling people why they are wrong and I am right. Especially, when much of what I believe that they believe is based on misunderstanding or willful ignorance. I think it is all satire. Many of you posters who enjoy tweaking the RC's remind me of Borat. Not everyone appreciated or comprehended his sense of humor. But that is the nature of satire. One either laughed at Borat or mistook him for an idiot of epic proportion.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

And yet you're here.

How very puzzling.

[Judith Anne]

Why should they complain about non-catholics posting non-caucus threads?

AMEN!

443 posted on Saturday, May 10, 2008 1:10:48 AM by Dr. Eckleburg

I replied to you, in this post #443, in my post 452. You just can't keep it straight. Fichori posted the original comment, but I responded to your "AMEN." If we can't trust Protestants to keep little things straight, why should we think you can do the big things (like interpret Scripture) any better?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Your use of the italics implied I made the statement which I did not (not that I wouldn't have happily done so.)

Keep defending the indefensible. Apparently it's a habit hard to break.

[Judith Anne]

One either laughed at Borat or mistook him for an idiot of epic proportion.

No reason they can't do both.

[1000 silverlings]

Yet the deeper reality was that he was Jewish, pretending to be Arabic, and making fun of people making fun of Jews. the whole thing was a touch bizarre, and not in the least funny, or would you not agree?

[Judith Anne]

Your use of the italics implied I made the statement which I did not (not that I wouldn't have happily done so.)

Are you really not understanding? I replied to YOUR post. YOU had it in italics.

I guess it's true, then, what I've been told. I didn't want to believe that about anyone...

Show's over, folks.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Judith, try to pay attention...

You wrote --

(Dr E:) Why should they complain about non-catholics posting non-caucus threads?

And you put those words in italics which clearly looks like you are offering a statement I had made.

I did not make that statement. I said "Amen" to that statement. Fichori made that statement in post 431.

Now it's over.

[LordBridey]

And yet you're here.

I am here. I enjoy reading a lot of the articles posted here, and think a lot of the comments of posters can be edifying and entertaining....and funny. I am not here to tell others what I think they believe and then attempt to prove them wrong. I would come across as a complete moron, if I did that.

[Judith Anne]

And I said: “That did not happen,” and it didn’t.

[Judith Anne]

ROFL!!!!

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I am not here to tell others what I think they believe

Great. That makes two of us. I said the very same thing in the post you partially quoted of mine.

I would come across as a complete moron, if I did that.

You certainly would.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Yes, we all heard you the first time you said that, Judith.

Sorry you didn't see the post. It was posted, however.

[Fichori]

If you edit your posts by hand(HTML), you can quote someone in a blockquote like this:

<blockquote>
<i>
then you put what you are quoting in here

</i>
</blockquote>

And it will look like this:

then you put what you are quoting in here

You can also nest multiple blockquotes:

<blockquote>
<i>
<blockquote>
Person A said this

</blockquote>
Person B quotes person A

</i>
</blockquote>
And then you quote both


Which would look like this:

Person A said this

Person B quotes person A

And then you quote both


Hope that helps.