Replies

I did not authorize this publication of material from my e-mail.

I sent my stern message to you via private e-mail because I knew it was unsuitable for the public Forum. Heck, I knew it would be only inflammatory to most RCs. I'm not an idiot, Brian.

Ah, but since you were inflamed by it, you wanted to use it to try to inflame other RCs against me. You wanted to be publicly inflammatory against me. (This is why you have now posted certain parts of the e-mail, of course.) I wanted to avoid any unncessary public inflammation on either side. I was using the very seriousness of my complaints against RCism to try to appeal to you in earnest. If nothing else, my earnestness was seen in the fact that I confronted you privately. I was not grandstanding. You are the one who is grandstanding.

I never retracted anything in my e-mail, of course. Now that you have published what I specifically told you must not be published, I will still not retract anything, of course. I will simply say that you are the one who is showing a bad spirit. It's funny how that works (see below!).

I can't retract what I said to you in private, since what I said in my e-mail was true--and I can prove every word of it to any really honest FReeper.

And I can't apologize for my words, since you did need to hear the Truth whether you wanted to hear it or not--which explains why you hated it. (In other words, I was sincere when I told you upfront in the "infamous e-mail" that I am concerned about you. Of course, you chose not to post that part of the e-mail. It didn't suit your publicly inflammatory purposes against me.)

And now, I cannot apologize for these inflammatory words appearing on the public discussion thread because I specifically insisted that you not publish them. (This was not cowardice on my part. But they were not intended for the wider audience [grin].)

Well, you knew that you should not publish this material, and yet you did it anyway.

The reason why I say you knew you shouldn't publish it is because you and patent repeatedly sought my permission. I thoughtfully frustrated you by my refusal fully consistent with proper decorum on these public threads. In your frustration, you have just decided to go ahead and break the rules. You seem to think that a FreeRepublic administrator will overlook your rule-breaking and pretend that I am the rule-breaker.

Well, maybe that's what will happen. Frankly, I don't care about this for myself. I do have better things to do. No matter what happens, you can't win in a personal spat with someone who like me. My pride is not at stake. At all. And I do have a life and ministry outside FR.

That being said, I do think FR could wind up losing. My point here is that I don't think it's a good idea for FR to decide this particular matter in your favor. The RCs seem to have the idea that this forum exists for them to say things which Protestants find disgusting and to get Protestants banned for daring to respond with disgust--even privately!

(Remember: I pointed out in my e-mail that you RCs always try to get us historic Protestants banned when you don't like our strident positions. You ought to chill out and look again at the record of the RCC. It's really, really bad. This is beyond dispute.)

There are certain sins among the saints that are only corrected and addressed by bringing their behavior to the light of day. The spiritual homicide of priestly pedearasty was only addressed by taking that which was private and making it public. So too the abusive behavior of some using private FReepmail must be made public, so that the acts of those with borderline personality disorders masquerading as saints preaching the gospel, may be laid bare.

All here now know you for what you are.

Only the spritually blind are deceived by your efforts at obfuscating that which is indefensible.

And only the spiritually dead will defend the acts and words of one so obviously troubled as you.

Do not contact me further via FReepmail or any other form of electronic communication. Such efforts by you will rightfully be interpreted as harassment by electronic communication, which will not be tolerated. I advise any others here who have been so harassed by the_doc that such harassment is a violation not only of Christian charity, morality and decency, but also applicable state and federal statutes. Of course, public postings on a forum such as this, per my consultation with a federal judge, do not come under these regulations.

Thank you for sharing your opinions. You are a seriously troubled individual, and I pray that God will bless you abundantly and heal you, illuminate your darkened intellect, and HAVE MERCY on your soul.

You have been warned. I have to share the gospel with you, but I do not have to tolerate violation of Christian decency and morality and federal and state regulations.

Don't kid yourself ... your email was a crashing disappointment and downright depressing. Hardly the sort of thing to get us "RC's" fired-up. I'm bummed to hear you did not write in anger or "at the end of your rope" one night and, instead, stand by what you said.

If you have evidence of RC's trying to get folks banned, please pass it on to me. I loathe that sort of thing and -- as always -- appreciate the perpetual opportunity for defense of the Church that is the consistent and often ugly bashing of her as Whore of Babylon, etc. etc. I have never known the "RC's" around here to be terribly thinskinned and, moreover, think they do a fine job of handling their own business. Granted, I can see where some would like to have the more disgusting and loathsome posts edited out but I -- for one -- BEG them to reconsider. I think it's important that the contempt for and bigotry against the Church stand in all its awful glory for all to see.

(After all ... you're not paranoid if they're really out to get you ... )

A pity things got so out of hand and that your ire was so strong you couldn't resist the temptation to speak via private e-mail what clearly was improper for the public forum.

As for their taking your grievous actions so seriously as to post them, I think it just goes to show that they're not particularly interested in getting you banned but merely exposing the underbelly of your ministry as practiced here at FR.

Besides, you stand by your words ... as should anyone be prepared to stand behind what they say in private as well as public. Anything less stinks of hypocrisy and the furtive nature best suited to the malevolent intent of a heart of darkness.

(This is why you have now posted certain parts of the e-mail, of course.)

Are you suggesting there is more to your freepermail? Please feel free to post them if so, if not you are full of it.

You are the one who is grandstanding.

I posted them, but despite that you don’t ping me to your latest. If you want to blame someone, blame me.

And I can't apologize for my words,

I doubt a single soul here thinks you will ever apologize for anything.

In your frustration, you have just decided to go ahead and break the rules.

Please cite whatever rule you claim is broken, and provide a link to where the folks who own this place have set that rule.

You seem to think that a FreeRepublic administrator will overlook your rule-breaking and pretend that I am the rule-breaker.

I have pinged the admin moderator. If he or she wants to punish someone for posting your freepermail, I am the one who did it. I am willing to let both your words, and my actions, be judged. You clearly were not.

That being said, I do think FR could wind up losing. My point here is that I don't think it's a good idea for FR to decide this particular matter in your favor.

How so, how does the forum lose by not punishing Brian or I for posting your vitriol?

(Remember: I pointed out in my e-mail that you RCs always try to get us historic Protestants banned when you don't like our strident positions. You ought to chill out and look again at the record of the RCC. It's really, really bad. This is beyond dispute.)

No, he was willing to debate with your “strident positions” but you had to take it personal and attack him.

patent +AMDG