:o)
-- You dispute that?
I am told I have to have someone to corroborate MY seeing something 40 years ago?
The normal person of responsibility checks things out and acknowledges where assertions might be less than slam dunks. But here all the old myths are pulled out of the attic -- like the genius who suggested that Dominic was a cruel inquisitor though the Inquisition didn't get going until decades after Dominic had entered the larger life. There's not even the least effort to verify the charge before it is hurled, yet I am supposed to think there is no hostility and contempt?
I think if one and the same person makes two contradictory charges with equal aggression, a number of conclusions can be immediately drawn: First, the person is looking for any old stick, since the object is to beat the dog. That is, making an accusation against a Catholic is far more important than seeing if the accusation makes sense or has any basis in reality.
And then there's the general lack of courtesy, of which this thread is an example. Really. As I have said more than once, if I wanted to get all fussy, I could complain about the names "Holiness," "Baptist," "Presbyterian," "Episcopal," and "Orthodox." Are "Orthodox," "holiness" or "Apostolic" any less general than "Catholic"? But I already have a life of which being outraged at people who disagree with me about religion is not a huge part.
I could go on. My noting hostility and contempt is not projection, it is a conclusion reluctantly drawn from observation.
Note: That I am not claiming particular virtue for all on our side. Some of us also seem to have gone over to the dark side of the force and seem to fight not for resolution but simply to express hostility.
And I really don't care who started it.
I do dispute it. I have never in my life called anyone that, nor have I ever heard anyone call you that, nor have I seen anyone here on FR call you that, except for the remark by Mr Rogers, and I don’t intend to say that he called you that maliciously either.
:o)