You seem to have made up a “group” here in the RF, called the fang and claw protestants and accuse them of turning you in for what, I dunno. You said it was something you said.
Which they did not do.
But apparently you believed your pronouncement so desperately that you played it forward as if it were true by saying:
“It started with *them* being thin-skinned.”
Not true, so wrong “opinions” twice.
And
“To hide this, they immediately started slinging accusations that *others* are being too sensitive.”
Wrong "opinion" again, third time.
There was nothing to hide as your premise has been shown to be false.
Many *others* were being too ‘sensitive’-—thinskinned as you noted my comments in that area with the quote at the top of your post to me:
*“As has been mentioned many times, if you (or any poster) is too thinskinned for the open threads, they should not be on them.”*
What's wrong with that. It sounds like good advice to me?
Then here is your “final analysis”
“...it was not I who brought the moderator in with false accusations of “mind reading.” [well good for you!] It was the fang and claw protestants [already shown to be not an issue, didn't happen] that wanted to ensure that the strongest arguments against them are stifled
What a concept! The posters arguing against the assumption of Mary don't seem to have a problem debating from a very strong scriptural basis. (or lack of scripture as the case may be.) Plus the Protestants and other born again Christians love to hear strong Catholic arguments for their positions. They are few and far between, and always countered quite well...imo.
I haven't seen any strong arguments FOR accepting Mary being assumed except those from non scriptural writings.
Non Catholic Christians don't give those writings the weight of wisdom from God, they (we) use the Bible
“but now that I see the mods have let you know”
That’s what they said.
“none of the “Protestants” turned you in for bad behavior”
I have not exhibited any “bad behavior.” Putting fang and claw protestants’ bad behavior at 100, no Catholic has exceeded 15 here, and that only under extreme provocation.
“You seem to have made up a “group” here in the RF”
You need to look up the difference between “made up” and “observed.”
“called the fang and claw protestants and accuse them of turning you in”
Yeah, the predictability with which the moderator rides to their rescue led me to that opinion. When you think about it, it’s actually worse that no one hit the abuse button, because that means the moderator is taking the time and energy to be pro-active about it. I wonder if the moderator posts here under a different name.
“Which they did not do.”
I have already admitted that, based on the moderator’s statement. Dwelling on it is just bad form.
“Not true, so wrong “opinions” twice.”
Nope, still the same error, still once.
“Wrong “opinion” again, third time.”
No, that one is correct. To hide their own thin-skinned behavior and distract the eye from their own bad behavior, the fang and claw protestants do, in fact, make a habit of slinging around false accusations of over-sensitivity.
You see, the moderators do allow personal insults here, so long as the poster is a tiny bit clever about it. I have demonstrated that on numerous occasions, and you demonstrate it once again by putting the word “opinion” in danger quotes.
*“As has been mentioned many times, if you (or any poster) is too thinskinned for the open threads, they should not be on them.”*
I really hate a bully.
“What’s wrong with that. It sounds like good advice to me?”
On a level playing field, there might be nothing wrong with it. What’s wrong with it here is that it translates to this: “We will insult you and lie about you to our heart’s content, and you will not be allowed to answer with the truth, so shut up.”
“What a concept! The posters arguing against the assumption of Mary”
They haven’t been “arguing,” in the correct sense of the word. The only argument they have is “it ain’t in da Biibull,” which is also true of things like the weather on the day of Jesus’ baptism. Since it’s not in the Bible, I assume there was no weather on that day. It was neither hot nor cold nor medium, it was neither sunny nor cloudy, windy nor not windy...there just wasn’t any weather that day, because it isn’t mentioned in the Bible.
“Non Catholic Christians don’t give those writings the weight of wisdom from God”
Do what?
“they (we) use the Bible...”
...incorrectly, to propagate error.