note, in your case, even as you complain about AB's rudeness, you continue to treat him rudely by calling him by a name to which he objects.
If Arrogant objects to being addressed by his own ID, he should change it, but as I said, it fits him so well. By the way, go back and check all the sweet and kind names by which he addressed me. Good that he has you to defend his rudeness, though.
I will check the information you so graciously provided about the history of that Chapel. I don't think it unreasonable that I want to seek corroboration, and that you find that somehow objectionable is very curious.
Thank you for entering into this discussion and your sanctimonious lecture on my behavior and my beliefs has been given the serious consideration that it deserves. You can guess to what degree I value a stranger's evaluation.
"I won't enter into a discussion about your errors and misconceptions about the SSPX because neither of us will ever convince the other of anything."
That's good, because I wouldn't want to even try. I'm not competent to discuss these matters. So I just take the word of our Holy Father.
"If Arrogant objects to being addressed by his own ID, he should change it, but as I said, it fits him so well."
As he explained to you, Bustard is the name, Arrogant is the adjective describing Bustard. He's expressed his preference, you've failed to respect it. I guess your theory, then, is that two wrongs, indeed, do make right.
"Good that he has you to defend his rudeness, though."
I haven't defended his rudeness. In fact, in my last post, I expressed that I wish that he, and all of us, would try to speak more kindly to each other. I've spent a lot of time at FR ranting and raving about this topic. Perhaps you've noticed. I suspect that some folks think I'm a bit batty about it. Others may think even worse of me. That's fine. I try to say what I say with charity, when I fail, please forgive me. However, it's something that must be said. Most of the folks here are concerned about the state of our Church, and want to be part of the solution, not the problem. We are part of the problem if we can't even deal with each other here in a charitable manner.
However, you give the appearance that you don't believe that you are held to the same code of behavior to which you wish to hold AB.
"I will check the information you so graciously provided about the history of that Chapel. I don't think it unreasonable that I want to seek corroboration, and that you find that somehow objectionable is very curious."
If you wish to further corroborate, that's fine. But for now, the best-known evidence supports AB, and you are obligated to at least refrain continuing to call into doubt what he has reported, as what he has reported is supported by the best-known evidence, at this point.
"Thank you for entering into this discussion and your sanctimonious lecture on my behavior and my beliefs has been given the serious consideration that it deserves. You can guess to what degree I value a stranger's evaluation."
* chuckle *
You're welcome. I hope that you do give it the serious consideration that it merits, whatever you may think of the messenger. ;-)
sitetest