What some fail to understand is that one can know the unintended and possible results of one's action and can still pursue the action without intending the "second effect."
I intended my question as asked. I wanted to know, well, what I asked. I hoped that in coming up with an answer (instead of the pages and pages of avoiding the question that I got) your side might realize that they weren't making a lot of sense. But I wanted to know the answer and looked forward to pursuing "not many," "some," "a whole lot," or whatever quantitative answer I got.
The way MOST people use "rhetorical question," there is an "expected answer." I had no expected answer. So I deny that the question was intended as a rhetorical question.
Now I DID think that the argument would finally lead to a conclusion that even our side had to admit that nobody thought that you were always calling us "feelthy papists." But that does not make the question rhetorical. It only makes it part of a discussion. Still it does have a quasi-rhetorical aspect, one might say a proleptically rhetorical side. This is because ONE DAY when truth is triumphant, your side would know that the obvious answer was "none." But I didn't expect that you knew it now, the obvious not being your side's strong suit.
So it was neither an accusation nor a rhetorical question. The response to my showing that the charge was ridiculous was to make more charges, which pretty much proves my point.
Then you declared that the rhetorical nature of the question was meant to be answered in the negative that no Protestants call Romanists names and that no Romanists take any terms as "names"
This is almost surreal in it's internal self-contradiction. And clearly you do not distinguish between something I think may happen and something I intend to happen.
Failure to make distinctions seems to be a problem for your side. YOU take my "Ah a gentleman to the last," as a whine, when the only thing it shares with a whine is that it notes the ignorant boorishness of the post. Personally I kind of enjoy it when my adversaries display their ignorance, crassness, and inbability to think clearly, so what you called a whine was kind of a celebration. Of course, in the gloomy Calvinist view, the difference between complaint and celebration is maybe not so clear.
When I pointed you to that post as a contradiction to your previous declaration that no Romanist thinks Protestants use names, you claim I called you a liar and that Calvinists only talk about sin and error in the abstract:
Another festival of misinterpretation.
Then I pointed out that I was NOT speaking in the abstract but actually pointed you to the error. At that point you claimed you knew of the claim but saw no error thus making your claim that Calvinists only speak to error and sin in the abstract false:
This is funny. Some think that all they have to do is to say something is an error and it is so. No explanation necessary. In my training we called this the transparent skull syndrome. The assumption is "Everyone can see what is going on inside my head, so I don't have to explain it."
So they think anyone who doesn't immediately see what these folks are talking about and does not immediately understand their alleged reasoning is just being perverse. They don't really get the whole "communication" thing. This leads to language like "is the ramblings," with the comical failure of verb to agree in number with subject. It's not inability so much as lack of desire.
So, I think the intentions were good. An argument was attempted. The next area to work on is learning to distinguish what is inside one's mind (where most other humans can't see it) from what is outside one's mind (where most humans CAN see it.) Also learning that one's failure to understand what somebody else says does not excuse personal abuse might be useful.