Replies

:) Ah. So you *have* practiced it. That's what I thought; thanks.

...and, although I don't usually get this picky with those who are polite: I think you meant "cogent" argument, yes? "Cognizant" means "being aware of"... and an argument can't be "aware" of anything; only an arguER can. It really does help triumphalistic and snide criticisms of others' arguments if one uses one's words correctly. Just saying. :) Or, better yet, one might drop the combative and belligerent approach altogether, and have an actual discussion of the topics...

...and re: the hyperventilating paroxysm about "bullying little people": what ARE you talking about? Which people are you calling "little people", and what do you see as "bullying"?

:) Ah. So you *have* practiced it. That's what I thought; thanks.

How many BTTT's have been posted on FreeRepublic in the last 17 years or so?

I've seen that fairly recently done by one of the RC sisterhood to comments which were then far enough out-of-line, those same "bumped to the top" comments ended up being deleted, with it occurring (fairly recently) twice in the same thread. lol.

So what's this complaint about high-fiving? I lent a pair of those to well thought out and well written comments which wrestled with (and defeated) complex forms of arguments presented in favor of what was referred to in the 19th century as 'Romish' claims to singular authority (for themselves, over and above all others, no ifs, ands, or buts) although that has been modified from Vatican I stances to Vatican II softening of those positions (while still attempting to retain those same claims, IN FULL).

"Cognizant" means "being aware of"... and an argument can't be "aware" of anything; only an arguER can

Ah, you got me there, on poor choice and ill-usage of a word.

Or, better yet, one might drop the combative and belligerent approach altogether, and have an actual discussion of the topics...

Wasn't the initial complaint you had against me, aimed towards this comment --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3283994/posts?page=1042#1042

Notice that that comment, was not addressed to you.

..and re: the hyperventilating paroxysm about "bullying little people": what ARE you talking about? Which people are you calling "little people", and what do you see as "bullying"?

There's plenty of that. Try searching your own comments.

If you can't see it, then my pointing out particular paragraphs and explaining them --- how in context is often equates to a form of bullying likely as not won't help.

Yet I was intending reference to bullying to not be limited solely to any one individual who engages in bullying promotion of[alleged] papal 'authority'.

My apologies for having seemingly aimed that only towards yourself.