[OLD REGGIE]

The “some” keeps it generalized. If he had said “you are a Papist bigot” then it would have been “making it personal.”

Not unlike your response to MarkBsnr (post 1730) wherein you directly responded to a post by metmom (post 1721) and failed to ping her in your response.

"Mark, Catholics must never be offended by the utterances of the insane and toothless old goofballs because works are irrelevant and the elect are above sin and are not required to live Beatitude.

There are some who play the "generalized" game to the hilt and cry to the Moderator when their feathers are ruffled.

[Religion Moderator]

Generalized condemnations are fair play in the town square but making it personal is not.

Also, it is in good form to ping the person you are talking about.

That said, I am aware that RF posters try to finesse the guidelines. It takes effort to remove the name of the poster on the "to:" line when you hit "post reply" - so doing that and then following it with a generalized condemnation is an obvious attempt to make it personal by other means.

[metmom]

Do as I say, not as I do!!!

[MarkBsnr]

There are some who play the "generalized" game to the hilt and cry to the Moderator when their feathers are ruffled.

True, but some of us try to keep some sort of restraint on those in our group who do this sort of thing.