[BlueDragon]

:) Ah. So you *have* practiced it. That's what I thought; thanks.

How many BTTT's have been posted on FreeRepublic in the last 17 years or so?

I've seen that fairly recently done by one of the RC sisterhood to comments which were then far enough out-of-line, those same "bumped to the top" comments ended up being deleted, with it occurring (fairly recently) twice in the same thread. lol.

So what's this complaint about high-fiving? I lent a pair of those to well thought out and well written comments which wrestled with (and defeated) complex forms of arguments presented in favor of what was referred to in the 19th century as 'Romish' claims to singular authority (for themselves, over and above all others, no ifs, ands, or buts) although that has been modified from Vatican I stances to Vatican II softening of those positions (while still attempting to retain those same claims, IN FULL).

"Cognizant" means "being aware of"... and an argument can't be "aware" of anything; only an arguER can

Ah, you got me there, on poor choice and ill-usage of a word.

Or, better yet, one might drop the combative and belligerent approach altogether, and have an actual discussion of the topics...

Wasn't the initial complaint you had against me, aimed towards this comment --- http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3283994/posts?page=1042#1042

Notice that that comment, was not addressed to you.

..and re: the hyperventilating paroxysm about "bullying little people": what ARE you talking about? Which people are you calling "little people", and what do you see as "bullying"?

There's plenty of that. Try searching your own comments.

If you can't see it, then my pointing out particular paragraphs and explaining them --- how in context is often equates to a form of bullying likely as not won't help.

Yet I was intending reference to bullying to not be limited solely to any one individual who engages in bullying promotion of[alleged] papal 'authority'.

My apologies for having seemingly aimed that only towards yourself.

[paladinan]

How many BTTT's have been posted on FreeRepublic in the last 17 years or so?

I have no clue... nor do I have any idea why you'd ask. Are you seriously suggesting that I was poking fun at your comment, NOT because of its specific anti-Catholic "crowing", but simply because it was a "bump to the top"?

I've seen that fairly recently done by one of the RC sisterhood to comments which were then far enough out-of-line, those same "bumped to the top" comments ended up being deleted, with it occurring (fairly recently) twice in the same thread. lol.

So what's this complaint about high-fiving?

Oh, heavens... it wasn't the high-five-ing, per se (the Protestants/Evangelicals dominate the competition, in that category, on FR); I'm not affected by that in the least, nor is there anything at all wrong with it (no matter who's doing it: Protestants, Catholics, LDS, atheists, etc.). It was the specific anti-Catholic CONTENT which was pretty extreme in its flamboyance (it's like listening to one of the Chicago "super-fans"). But again: the overall effect of the hyper-inflated thetoric was comical, not infuriating. It was a bit like watching a semi-berserk fan of a sports team, covered in body paint, hop up on a car hood and bellow a list of "team spirit" comments for the TV camera. That's why I responded as light-heartedly as I did.

Ah, you got me there, on poor choice and ill-usage of a word.

:) FRiend, I usually let those go without so much as a thought; I'm certainly not infallible in my own comments, and I'm usually disposed to give complete benefit of the doubt to all others. It's only when commenters gets combative and belligerent-sounding (and especially when they commit errors which are glaringly ironic--such as [for random examples, not specific to this thread] misspelling words while calling someone/something else stupid, using inflammatory language while berating someone else for being "mean", etc.) that I'm at all tempted to comment on such things at all.

I'll even let you in on a secret: even my more flippant sounding teases on this forum are ALWAYS aimed at those who "shot first"--those whose vitriol toward the Catholic Church leads them to be hostile and incendiary toward all things (and sometimes all people) Catholic. You can see, even on this forum, that this is true: those who address me (and others) politely will never be the recipient of flippant comments or dismissals from me, since I admire their sincerity (even if I disagree with their position completely), and I especially admire their level-headed-ness. I've just learned, through awkward experiences, that the best way (especially given the current rules in force from the RM's) to handle hostility and acerbic comments from anti-Catholic-Church people is for me NOT to take them seriously. When any person finally settles down to a real point (rather than hyperbolic rhetoric, sneers, put-downs, canards, etc.), then I engage them in all earnestness. Go and check my comments (and those to which I replied), and see if this isn't true.

Case in point: when you mentioned the word "Romish", you're quoting (and I'm not angry about it, BTW--this is just a tactical point) a slur... just as it would be a slur for me to address Protestants by the slur "Prots" or "Proddies". Such things add nothing substantial to ANY discussion, and I avoid them completely. It would be a good idea for EVERYONE to avoid them completely, IMHO.

Notice that that comment, was not addressed to you.

Of course. So... is your point that I should only be concerned for myself (i.e. be selfish)? Or should I so distance myself from my heritage that slams against the Church should be matters of complete indifference to me? That doesn't sound like the response of a faithful Christian, if I were to do that. "For zeal for thy house has consumed me, and the insults of those who insult thee have fallen on me. (Psalm 69:9) And again: I'm not upset; I'm just baffled that you'd suggest that you're justified (and you are!) in intervening/commenting on behalf of others in discussions which weren't weren't addressed to YOU (as you did in the very comment we're discussing), while suggesting that I was somehow "not good" in replying to YOUR comment which wasn't addressed to me. Shouldn't we BOTH have the freedom to jump into discussions, like this? I think so, anyway.

[paladinan]
..and re: the hyperventilating paroxysm about "bullying little people": what ARE you talking about? Which people are you calling "little people", and what do you see as "bullying"?

[BlueDragon]
There's plenty of that.

I'm sure. But could you be just a wee bit more specific (about the people suffering it, and the comments which demonstrate it)... especially since you're accusing me of having done it? Perhaps you could quote some, and explain clearly how these are "bullying"? Among other reasons, I ask this because a common liberal tactic (as anyone on FR knows, if they've experienced our culture for more than 5 minutes) is to throw the "bullying" label around in efforts to "shut up" any voices or positions or comments which they don't like; so no one on FR (me, included) is usually inclined to "roll over" and accept it when the accusation comes their way.

Try searching your own comments.

Um... how about you try QUOTING from my comments which you have in mind, since YOU know what you're looking for, and I don't? How on earth would I be able to "search" in my hundreds of comments for something which you claim is "bullying", but for which you haven't give me a shred of a clear definition?

If you can't see it, then my pointing out particular paragraphs and explaining them --- how in context is often equates to a form of bullying likely as not won't help.

Ah. The "if you don't know what's wrong, then I'm certainly not going to tell you" school of commentary. Gotcha. That's known as "drive-by criticism" (i.e. a quick attack, followed by a speedy get-away in order to avoid repercussions)... and it's neither logical nor good style (or manners, for that matter). Should I call this "bullying" from you, do you think? :) Yet I was intending reference to bullying to not be limited solely to any one individual who engages in bullying promotion of[alleged] papal 'authority'. My apologies for having seemingly aimed that only towards yourself.

:) How generous of you. But since your further comments clearly single me out as a "guilty party" (cf. "Try searching your own comments."), I'm afraid that's not very impressive as an apology... especially since I was objecting to the accusation AT ALL, and not to the idea that I was somehow "the only one" you accuse thusly.