[Sock]

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.

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.

[sitetest]

Dear Sock,

"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?"

What is said abstractly of an amorphous group can become hurtful when aimed at a particular individual. This isn't a difficult concept to grasp.

"Evidently 'friendship' means more to you than it does to me. I understand, sitetest."

Evidently, you read more into my words than was put there by the author.

As to my answer to your original post #59, so I suppose that you are suggesting that it is my obligation to dig up the article for you. Well, I didn't have time last night, nor did I this morning (I responded to you in the brief time I had available to heading out to Mass.).

"Thanks for the entertainment, sitetest."

Thanks for the condescension, Sock. ;-)

If you're interested, I'm sure that you can find the article yourself. It treats directly your errors in how you regard apparitions.

I noticed though that in your last post, you passed right over your apparently uncharitable remarks where you misinterpreted another poster, then, after that poster had made more clear what he had said, you called him a liar who had backed off his prior lies.

Oh wait, you DID address that:

"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."

Of course you're no longer interested in discussing an instance where you were likely guilty of rash judgement and a lack of charity. I understand, Sock.

;-)

sitetest