By analogy, if Shakespeare came back to life and wrote a new play in text-messaging language rather than in, ummm, Shakespearean English and happened to be available to hear my opinion, I might say: Gosh, Will, the grammar, spelling and syntax in that play was not up to your usual standard. I hope you'll do better next time.
As you probably know, I don't make a career of pestering moderators over ordinary slights but tend to handle them on my own. The two exceptions to date have been when a FReeper from Chicago became angry, claimed to know my address and threatened to physically attack me in my own home. I contacted you guys, asked if I should discuss the matter with State Police, took your advice not to and you banned that person under two different screennames. The other exception was privately asking you to delete a post made in error under the assumption that I was sending private Freepmail to someone in which, at 3 AM, I had included my address and phone number.
In post #131, I posted what I and, I am quite sure, bornacatholic regarded as a humorous post responding to bornacatholic's (hereinafter bac) posted praise of a previous post of mine.
In post #163, Pyro7480 butted in to suggest that bac and I (Catholic husbands and fathers as Pyro7480 well knows) get a room (presumably for a homosexual encounter) because he does not like to read posters with whom he disagrees posting praise or humor to one another here while disagreeing with pyro7480).
In #179, the quoted language ought not to be viewed as objectionable (although I will read the guidelines again after posting this post) and, indeed, is praise and not left-handed praise either.
If I am wrong, delete this post and #179, and I will find something else to do and somewhere else to do it for today because, for the life of me, I do not see what is wrong with telling pyro7480 that suggesting that I and bac are homosexuals is beneath his normal standard of argument.
Also, I would renew previous messages to the effect that when FR allows itself to be used for vitriolic religious attacks upon either Catholics or Evangelicals, two of your major constituency groups, the effect is not to enlighten, not to unite conservatives, not to weld an effective political movement but rather the contrary on all scores. Any question as to what is Catholic and what attacks Catholicism is easily resolved by the fact that the SSPX schism was excommunicated by Pope John Paul the Great (referenced by Marcel LeFebvre himself on 8/29/1987 as the anti-Christ as posted and highlighted by Slugworth's post #169, apparently affirming such an opinion). I would likely and gladly rise to the defense of, say, the Rev. Mr. Billy Graham, if he was attacked here as a fraud or as an anti-Christ. Should Catholics be expected to to accept such attacks upon our recently deceased pope from those whom he excommunicated???? If we Catholics are angry at schismatic attacks by SSPXers falsely claiming Catholicism after they have been excommunicated and therefore refuse to hold hands with the attackers, perhaps the fault lies with those excommunicated who shamelessly use FR to advertise their cult and deny its excommunication.
If you guys are willing to be religious referees, you have a stronger stomach than I care to have.
I know that JimRob is not a Roman Catholic. I have no idea of the religion of the Religion Moderator (nor do I care) and it ought not to matter what the religion of anyone in FR ownership or management may be, if I understand FR's purposes correctly. I have yet to start even one thread here. I respond only. I lack computer skills to bring in articles from other sources or even to start a post. People here who do start threads don't need my help in that respect.
We do have a LOT of threads from SSPXers or their Hallelujah Chorus claiming that the Vatican's surrender to the schism is imminent. What do such threads add to conservatism. For that matter, what do threads on evolution have to do with conservatism. They run a typically vitriolic 500+ posts of FReepers bashing one another.
I have tried to avoid controversy between the Catholic Church and other Christian churches (as years ago I did not) because I don't think:
a. That non-Catholic churches are any of my Catholic business unless (like SSPX) they falsely claim (see Ecclesia Dei and JP II) to be Catholic.
b. That those of us who actually are Catholic (according to diocesan bishops and the pope who have the authority and have used it to define such matters and status) have more than enough to keep us busy WITHIN Catholicism without trying to tell other religions how to conduct their affairs.
c. That I have concluded that Lutherans are the best judges of Lutheranism; Methodists of Methodism; Anglicans of Anglicanism; Evangelicals of Evangelicalism; Presbyterians of Presbyterianism; Pentecostals of Pentecostalism and that I should keep my uninformed and uninvolved attitudes to myself on such matters. After all, no one requires me to post on such matters. If someone in one of those categories insults Catholicism (calling popes Anti-Christs, referencing the Church itself as the Whore of Babylon or other Jack Chickian opinions) I may respond but generally refrain, figuring that such posts speak for themselves. If anyone actually believes such things (and some do), they are not going to change their minds on my say so. On the other hand, most of them do NOT claim to be Catholic.
SUMMATION: FR is JimRob's living room and the rules are his business and not mine. His delegations of authority are his choice. Ours but to comply or to leave. I do think that this is a case in which the only thing personal about that quoted language was disappointed praise and not attack. Also this exchange started last night with a huffy, jeremiad about how Pyro7480 had had enough of bac and me.
I apologize for taking this long to respond but one of my daughters called at length from school which has to take precedence.