Alex's contribution was to select the raw numbers for 2015 and 1965 provided in the article, convert them into a percentage and then rebuke Catholic Culture for not doing likewise....
An ability seemingly impossible for Catholic World News. Can't have any "anti-Catholic" statistics! (post #10).
A ridiculous statement since the article source makes no attempt to hide the raw numbers nor the overall trend on which Alex's calculation was based.
It's a two line article. The deficit between 2015 and 1965 is already abundantly clear from the raw numbers provided.....as well as the recent uptick.
What color is the sky on this planet wherein Catholics are compelled to repeatedly disassemble, analyze, and then grade my every post? Do I have to pay rent for living there?
It was not himself who brought up past posting history.
If you want me to look at anything else you may have to say, start there, before trying to justify the over-reactions he received which then led to all the rest.
In the past I've seen the guy pilloried for doing nothing more than italicizing for emphasis some portion of an article.
As far as the claim to have "rebuked Catholic Culture" for having had not have included contemplation of apparent long-term downwards trend --- that claim is false, for initially what he did say was a perhaps too loose, "in other words", before pointing towards the overall, still 40% decline since '65, even in spite of this last apparent upwards movement of numbers.
If that was taken as some form of rebuke, then that's as much or more in the minds of FRomans who went after him personally for having looked at the numbers in that way.
You say that's ridiculous? What was truly ridiculous is that when he pointed it out it was characterized as an anti-Catholic statistic" as if the numbers themselves were "anti". But then we know it was all about FRoman's perceptions of Alex Murphy, with the bleak (and long term) trend of those numbers being not something that rah-rah, go team go Roman Catholics want to hear.
You yourself made it out to be as if he was doing a victory dance...which was to attribute motive, while all but blaming him for the overall downwards trend itself.
Oh wow man, did he harsh your mellow?
It was also a FRoman who accused him of *thinking* that all [Roman] Catholics were "going to hell" (he didn't say that) to which he responded (and justifiably so) that if a Catholic were to have discussed the numbers in the way he did it would be one thing, but since it was himself -- then ill motivations were attributed to himself.
595 out of how many [Roman] Catholics?
Doesn't that number seem awfully small to you?