. . . "can" . . . ????
Uhhhhh . . . no . . . I came up with some charitable, inclusive, encompasing terms I hoped would be seen as mutually acceptable.
I got back the usual heretical !!!!CONTROL!!!! PHREAQUE !!!!DEMANDING!!!! stinking piles of supreme arrogance from the usual finger frothing cliques for TPC's to utterly kotow to and comply with. NOPE. No more.
HINT:
They burned that bridge.
They burned the bridge pilings.
They burned the bridge abudments.
They burned the bridge approaches.
They gleefully burned the asphalt for miles around leading up to the bridge approaches.
I would frequently limit my preferences in posting fun and colors just in an effort to minimize jangling some of their starchy, prissy, sanctimonious, self-righteous, snooty, Nurse Rachetty sensibilities . . . when one cares, one frequently defers on sensibilities. NO MORE. Rain on em. It can take me many years, as I've demonstrated, hereon, to get burned out on even the nastiest of scoundral types. However, it does happen, on occasion.
If they want to pretend to Mother Mary that they can or want to play nice, THEY can come up with a MUTUALLY ACCEPTABLE umbrella term. That they refuse will be a screaming persistent declaration of their fierce galactic level arrogance and stubborness about their exclusive, unrighteous, UNBiblical IN-GROUP vs OUT-GROUP mentalities.
OR, Perhaps I should just let my creativity roam and see how many possible plausible unheretical terms I could come up with . . . and Trinitarian Protty Christians could just choose which seemed like the most fun for us.
. . . the only broad term a forum website can use . . .. . . "can" . . . ????
Uhhhhh . . . no . . . I came up with some charitable, inclusive, encompasing terms I hoped would be seen as mutually acceptable.
I really did try to use "Romanist / Papist Scum Caucus", but a mod deleted the experimental thread.
So I'm trying to work with you here, Quix.