Posted on 02/01/2016 4:05:40 PM PST by NYer
Alex Murphy consistently posted anti-Catholic threads. I don’t think vlad posts anti-Protestant threads.
Why are you making the thread about a poster, rather than commenting on the article?
There was a span of years which he posted many articles from media around the nation in regards to the sexual abuse scandals. In his last years here, not so much. He rarely commented. Even when posting threads, Murphy had a practice of quoting portions of an article -- without commenting much at all. People around here would react like their hair was on fire.
Face it. He was banned chiefly because he was hated by Roman Catholics. People lobbied management here to get him ousted. FACT.
Why does vladi (and many other 'Catholics') make threads be about freepers here, seeming to always include commentary of a personal nature?
And what of all his negativity, and statements of insulting condemnation for Protestants (the people themselves) in general? It's just so much nonstop flame-bait. What's good for the Murph, should serve for the vladi.
If posting so-called anti "Catholic" threads is enough to get a poster banned, then why not posting anti-Protestant freeper comments (aimed at specific freepers, and a whole class of persons, generally) which consistently tend strongly towards the personal NOT get someone banned?
I don't expect genuine answers to these sort of inquiries, and do not demand them from yourself in this matter. So please do feel in any way obligated to respond, if you would prefer not to.
Looks like he did comment on the article and then was called a drunk (masked as a question.)
Click on the link to see where it started.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3391571/posts?page=9#9
Don't you think it would be a good idea to see where a problem originated before making biased accusations?
“Isn’t it about time that a few examples be made out of those who should know better than to make things personal — but simply refuse (or are unable to) refrain from doing that very thing — on a regular basis?”
Aren’t you making this personal right now?
I don’t really enjoy going to church very much.
“Why are you making the thread about a poster, rather than commenting on the article?”
BlueDragon is doing it because this is his best opportunity to get me banned. I should not have said “Are you drunk?” to SkyPilot. I posted what I posted, however, because it seemed appropriate according to the bizarre idiocy of SkyPilot’s comment. If I took the time I could have worded my comment in such a way that it was more obviously about the stupidity of his comment and could not be so easily construed as about him. When I consider what has been posted about me over the years here, that comment is not the end of the world.
If the RM chooses to delete the post I understand. But then your post should be deleted too, BlueDragon for doing exactly what you accuse me of doing.
I’m just saying. . .
And to SkyPilot: I should not have asked if you were drunk. For that I apologize.
No worries. Matthew 6: 14-15 applies to all of us. Have a good day.
There have been far better "opportunities" as for examples of reason and justification. Will there be more?
Even the difficult to follow, argumentative style of recapping conversation that you have -- is toxic, poisoning the atmosphere of the religion forum, setting example for others to follow.
Interesting statement being as you thanked him on an anti-Protestant thread for posting the truth.
Forgot to qualify the word truth.
SHB “truth”
“There have been far better “opportunities” as for examples of reason and justification. Will there be more?”
Absolutely. Count on it. When speaking the truth to those who post falsehoods, I will speak with bluntness.
“Even the difficult to follow, argumentative style of recapping conversation that you have — is toxic, poisoning the atmosphere of the religion forum, setting example for others to follow.”
You just cut and pasted something I wrote: “BlueDragon is doing it because this is his best opportunity to get me banned.” How is that any different than recapping a conversation when someone is denying he said something when the proof is right there? Kettle. Pot.
I owe you no further explanation than has already been supplied.
“If you can’t see what the differences are now, I serious doubt you’d see them if I rubbed your nose in it.”
Because there is no real difference. “Recapping” three quotes is really NO DIFFERENT than “recapping” one. Thus, your claim is erroneous to say the least.
“I owe you no further explanation than has already been supplied.”
I didn’t ask for “further explanation”. I asked a question about the necessity of “recapping”. It was obvious from the start that no “further explanation” could make your claim any more valid than no explanation at all.
Speak to the hand.
Or better yet, my heel.
That's all you'll get. A chance to bruise me, there.
“I’m not going to play your game, vladi.”
Stop posting to me.
“Speak to the hand.”
Stop posting to me.
“Or better yet, my heel.”
Stop posting to me.
“That’s all you’ll get. A chance to bruise me, there.”
Stop posting to me. Read a book instead.
I knew what the words meant in full context. I was there, remember?
You can't redefine your way out of it now.
I'm simply not interested in hearing any more justifications for what cannot be honestly justified.
Enjoy the second childhood? Hope it's happier than some childhoods either of us could think of (there's plenty of youngsters around the world suffering through circumstances and needless abuse of many sort, right now, as we write, and read).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.