Proph: Scattered post-election thoughts
My not-scattered thought on the above: "The shepherd hamstrings his own sheep, and the wolves devour them more easily."
And you guys are never going to admit that there is something flawed in Catholicism, or at any rate, in the American iteration of it, are you? Something which promotes and gives "religious" cover to leftism.
Meanwhile, the handful of "Rah-Rah Catholics" who hang out here ['here' being a reference to 'The Orthosphere'] will continue to snipe at "fundies" ... which is to say, at people like me.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't snipe at fundies, and I think a statistic which shows 50% of Catholics supporting Obama compared to 43% of Protestants supporting Obama hardly adds up to some kind of particular condemnation of Catholics. Especially when the support of Romney was at 47% for Catholics.
Perhaps your time could be better spent bothering someone who gives a damn about your foolishness.
Call it a character flaw on my part, if that makes you feel any better, but I tend to lose interest in persons who "argue" their unsustainable positions by means of personal insult and who then go on to spread lies about me.
What? Am I just supposed to pretend you are my friend, when you clearly never were in the first place? I wouldn't tolerate your recent behavior from a blood relative; why do you think I'd tolerate it from some anonymous person on the internet?
Perhaps your time could be better spent bothering someone who gives a damn about your foolishness.
Nope. I'm going to comment pretty much whenever I feel like it, acting reasonably. I imagine you'll eventually ban me outright from your blog.
but I tend to lose interest in persons who "argue" their unsustainable positions by means of personal insult
Pot, kettle.
You layer on the personal insults and lectures and sheer obnoxiousness when people disagree with you, even in the most trivial ways. Are you really that surprised when eventually someone gets tired of it and replies in kind, with gusto?
I defy you to point to any conversation you've had online which involved you disagreeing with someone - even someone who defended you and generally agrees with you - that didn't involve you lecturing them about how foolish, how illogical, how irrational, etc they were for thinking what they did. It's never, "I think you're wrong, and here's why" when you disagree. It's "You're absolutely wrong, and if you fail to agree with me, your failings are absolutely immense and you're no better than the atheists and..."
who then go on to spread lies about me.
This never happened. I have the suspicion that if you were forced to name one, you'd point at my previous comment and insist you don't act this way - in which case I'd just say you are very ignorant of your own behavior.
What? Am I just supposed to pretend you are my friend, when you clearly never were in the first place?
Ilion, you don't seek out or have friends in these discussions. Friends don't act the way you do. That's very much a two-way street.
I wouldn't tolerate your recent behavior from a blood relative; why do you think I'd tolerate it from some anonymous person on the internet?
You don't have to tolerate it. You can just start deleting my comments, I suppose. Until that happens, when I see something worth commenting on on your blog, I'm going to comment.
50% to 43%. Keep that in mind.
What I really cannot grasp is why some liar would want my notice and approval so much ... yet, oddly enough, not enough to actually stop lying about me, much less to apologize for having expressed his pettiness by spreading lies about me.
Post a Comment