[Dr. Eckleburg]

I find it pretty funny that the only thing you have to high-five in this discussion is that one time I mistakenly wrote vatican.org for vatican.va.

If you recall, the point you were struggling to make was that I must have been posting from some hate site. It was proven I was posting from vatican.va.

If vatican.org had been some dastardly hate site, you'd have a point.

But as you so aptly showed us all, vatican.org DOES NOT EVEN EXIST!

The same assault was leveled at Old Reggie last night as RC posters accused him of posting from hate sites, even after he showed you he was posting directly from Catholic websites.

You people need to realize no one here has to post from any hate site. The vatican's own words, the RCC's own catechism, Rome's own apologists, all clearly display the arrogant, unScriptural errors of the magisterium for anyone with eyes to see.

[Petronski]

I don't know about any high-fiving, but Catholics have spent hundreds and hundreds of posts laughing at the utter bankruptcy of passing off co-Redemptrix as a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

The attempt is a vacuous fraud, yet despite countless corrections and demonstrations, the attempt persisted and will no doubt persist still.

[netmilsmom]

>>I find it pretty funny that the only thing you have to high-five in this discussion is that one time I mistakenly wrote vatican.org for vatican.va.<<

I wasn’t “High-fiving” a thing. I was making a correction and a reference to the Actual thread so everyone could read it. It’s the “Do Protestants think that Catholics are Christians?” With a search for that post, anyone can read the facts. And I will let the facts speak for themselves.

>>If you recall, the point you were struggling to make was that I must have been posting from some hate site. It was proven I was posting from vatican.va.<<

No, I said that a Google search of the exact quote gave only links to Anti-Catholic sites and then reposted the link, Many times. It was not proven that on the first post you were posting from Vatican.va because there were no number to place the footnotes. Only on your second attempt did these materialize.

>>If vatican.org had been some dastardly hate site, you’d have a point.<<
Only when I pointed out that the name Vatican.org was owned by some Canadian guy, did you realize your mistake.

>>But as you so aptly showed us all, vatican.org DOES NOT EVEN EXIST!<<
But you stated that you quoted from it two times before I pointed that fact out.

>>The same assault was leveled at Old Reggie last night as RC posters accused him of posting from hate sites, even after he showed you he was posting directly from Catholic websites. <<

I NEVER said that. NEVER. And I think that it’s time to stop attributing motives to me that were not mine.

First it is against the rules and second it’s wrong.

Period.