Good morning to you, too.
I don't think of myself as an "advocate" for sinkspur. I do view him as a friend. However, even if I disliked sinkspur, I still don't think I'd approve of some of the language directed his way.
I notice that in most of the quotes that you provide of saintly persons castigating heretics & such, for the most part, the harsh words are directed at groups of people, not usually at individuals.
But even still, look at your quote from St. Francis de Sales, "Yes, you can, on the condition that you adhere to the exact truth, to what you know of his bad conduct, presenting that which is doubtful as doubtful,..."
I also notice this from the Catholic Catechism:
"2478 To avoid rash judgement, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable inerpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. Adn if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."
In my own view, you have failed this task on this thread, regarding sinkspur. I believe that he posted something which was ambiguous in meaning, and that you gave the worst interpretation, rather than a favorable one. When he made clear what he had said, it was clear that a favorable interpretation would have been the right one. Yet, in later posts, you accused him of first lying, and then backing off his lies, when what seems to have happened, at least in my view, is that he clarified a previously-ambiguous post.
You seem to have failed St. Francis' test, as well as that of the Catechism. That isn't crying "wolf", it's just calling the "wolf" names.
As to the rest from your post #59, I did answer you. Perhaps you missed it, or perhaps you didn't take seriously my invitation to search out the recommended material.
sitetest
Let’s see if I understand you? If “harsh words” are directed a “groups of people” you will not take issue. Only when they are directed at one offender in particular (especially a friend) does the remark meet with you disapproval? Evidently “friendship” means more to you than it does to me. I understand, sitetest.
You continued:
As to the rest from your post #59, I did answer you. Perhaps you missed it, or perhaps you didn't take seriously my invitation to search out the recommended material.
You must have forgotten what you wrote last night:
There was an excellent post or link in a post to an article by Fr. Groeschel (if my memory serves correctly) about the content and interpretation of private revelations. I believe it has bearing on your post to me. It's past my bedtime, so I won't try to find it.
Last night your excuse was that it was past your bedtime. This morning, I missed “your invitation” to search for your rebuttal to the post that I made to you.
Thanks for the entertainment, sitetest.
btw: I am not interested in wasting any more bandwith on your "friend." So if his case is all you wish to discuss with me, thanks, but no thanks.