Oh my goodness, are you saying that what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?
Sorry, but you have no right to object to methods you yourself both advocate and routinely apply unless you're also claiming to be an infallible individual and as such, demand everyone accept your interpretation of Scripture as correct. So, are you saying that you are the infallible and the final authority on all interpretation of Scripture?
Have you changed your opinion in the last few hours and no longer agree with personal interpretation of Scripture, or are you saying that your advocacy of personal interpretation only applies to Scripture because the interpretation of Scripture isn't nearly as important as the interpretation of comments in a discussion forum?
If you have ceased to believe that each individual can listen to whatever voices pop into their head, call those voices the Holy Spirit, and then interpret Scripture accordingly, who do you say is the final authority when a question of interpretation arises? Or do you still advocate personal interpretation of Scripture but, if and only if you agree with the result of such personal interpretation?
Do you still think it's just fine for someone to slander Christians, Jesus Christ, Mary, all of the Apostles, and all Catholics who have ever lived, along with anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with their own personal interpretation of Scripture ?
People who advocate a given approach to Scripture or anything else but object to others using that exact same approach without the approval of the advocate are called either a hypocrite, or a relativist, or both. When such an individual is clearly very selective in when they object to the approach they advocate, they would qualify for being described as both a hypocrite and a relativist.
How about this clarification, do you agree with those who say both Christmas and Easter are pagan holidays, agree with those who believe it's wrong to have Church services on Sunday rather than Saturday, agree with those who say all sacred artwork is some sort of idolatry, and do you agree with those who believe the Catholic Pope is now or at some future time will be the prophet of the AntiChrist or the AntiChrist? Given your defense of those who espouse such things, clear all these questions up and then maybe we could discuss which other fantasies you may or may not have accepted from the Most High Self crowd and whether or not I've misunderstood something you've said. Until then, I'll I consider it axiomatic that any dog leaving worm infested samples around has worms.
When a member of The Invisible Church of the Most High Self starts "clearing up a few things" for anyone who doesn't agree with the Millerite and Russelite lies and fables, it's obvious where they're coming from. Particularly when such folks select a screen name near and dear to those who believe in, The Rapture of the Snowflakes Fantasy or some variant of threreof.
Rather than interacting with what i wrote, your reply is another rant that ignores the very points i first made in response to you (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2831799/posts?page=1410#1410), which refutes the premise that SS renders one assuming infallibility, while pointing out that the Catholic himself “makes a fallible decision to submit to Rome, which use of fallible human reasoning he also engages in when interpreting what Rome has taught, including which teachings are indeed infallible in which was are not, in which he cannot be absolutely sure.” Thus we both claim infallible authorities as supreme, but not assuredly infallible interpretations of them.
Instead you want to me to deal with the posts of individuals, which solves nothing, as the real issue is the premise you rage against. If you you want to engage in reasoned exchange on that, than do so, if not, your broadbrushed immature run ons warrant no more of a response than those of atheists may.