I think the old dictum about the 5th amendment's self-incrimination provision applies here: It is a shield, not a sword.
If a thread with a provocative OP is put up in order to prove a bias on the part of the RM, it is entirely legitimate to question the validity of its appeal for Caucus protection.
Like the cowards who launch artillery from behind a shield of women and children, those who seek to use the Caucus designation as cover for attacks on others ought not to be surprised nor consider themselves aggrieved when the designation is removed.
And as for complaining that it is straining at gnats when a wholesale attack is considered a .. wait for it .. wholesale attack, well some always complain when the rules are taken as rules.
Personally I don't think an adopted pose of injured innocence meets any of my needs, nor do I think the pose grants the poseur with any moral claim on me.
I wonder if they have actually used such tactics on Catholics in person? If so, I can only be thankful that the the success rate would have to be low to nil.
Like the cowards who launch artillery from behind a shield of women and children, those who seek to use the Caucus designation as cover for attacks on others ought not to be surprised nor consider themselves aggrieved when the designation is removed.
It is evident to me that fruitful dialogue was not the goal. Not at all.
Personally I don't think an adopted pose of injured innocence meets any of my needs, nor do I think the pose grants the poseur with any moral claim on me.
Amen, brother.
Irrespective of the pyschobabble, the evidence is that a Caucus was formed and article placed which clearly fits within the guidelines. Immediately, without provocation, Romanists began violating the rule. Some merely provided fact, others merely asked question, and, of course, the gnat-strainers made their appearance. Irregardless of their motives the rule was broke. And, irregardless of my motives, the Caucus fit the guidelines. If the rule of law was being followed then the Caucus designation should stand.
Frankly, I thought the designation would fall for a more obvious technicality which I don’t believe has been brought up yet.
Here you’ve been straining for gnats and there’s a big horsefly buzzing around.
I’m a little disappointed in you, dawg. I thought you were a better Canon lawyer than that.
I’m also discovering some other interesting intrigue. The Jesuits must be running this place!
LOL!