D
drcube
Guest
Yes. I do generally respond to posts that quote me. That doesn’t mean I care what you think of me.
O
ontheway1
Guest
And here we have the best proof of how . . . some on the Left . . . responds to anything that is outside their dogma. If you don’t chant their mantras, what you are saying are “falsehoods and exaggerations”.
Last edited:
D
drcube
Guest
Ah, a proof-text where you take a small part of what I said to make it look like I meant something totally different than what I said. How is that not a lie?
D
drcube
Guest
No, it’s the falsehoods and exaggerations in what is said that are the falsehoods and exaggerations, not that you don’t chant their mantras.
M
Maximus1
Guest
I think it is a bad strategy to align with pundits who make a living appealing to the extremes of either party.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Seems like a good time to recommend the Bishop’s advice to Civilize It
Sorry, was your answer not a ‘yes’?
It certainly seemed that way.
Did the explanation you attached somehow negate the affirmative answer?
D
drcube
Guest
The trouble with the internet is that some people can’t filter through the gobs of information and focus on the wrong things. The old media used to focus on things that they felt had importance, which was the only information people would get. That meant the people didn’t have to figure out what was important because they weren’t overloaded with information. Today, they can get all the information they want and you see the effects. I don’t really know how to solve this and I like that I can find out about what I want to find out easily, but it is a problem.
D
drcube
Guest
Yes, I answer my posts. That doesn’t mean I care about what you think of me. That’s the whole answer. When you only post part of it, you are misrepresenting the post. And, this, from a person who seemed to care whether I thought he was telling the truth about his co-workers and father-in-law. I guess you just proved my point on the unreliability of statements made by posters around here. Thank you.
M
Maximus1
Guest
You are right! It is one thing to appear on a show that has Catholic faith as it’s subject. When you couple that with a limited show of left wing or right wing politics, you marry the two. Those politics might align on an issue or two, but are not on other substantial issues. It makes the Church look like it supports partisan power and money interests. It makes the Church look small, like a department ( throwing it’s constituency behind)of a larger right wing or left wing party machine.
Last edited:
No, you are misunderstanding the question or trying to make it something it is not.
I didn’t ask if you cared what I thought of you.
I asked if you cared.
I ignored the information that was not pertinent because it is irrelevant to what I asked.
You are ready and so willing to assume the most nefarious of motivation, and you don’t even know what was actually asked.
I do not care why, the fact is that you cared enough to respond. And that is what I was referring to.
It says a great deal that the default is insult and accusations instead of checking for misunderstanding.
G
godisgood77
Guest
These definitely aren’t news site…
They are more properly defined as propaganda sites.
F
Feanor2
Guest
Well they are certainly presented as valid sources of Catholic news. I see that as a problem.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Well Church Militant is not allowed to use the word Catholic in its name and Voris has been banned from speaking a at least one diocese… Archbishop Chaput has warned against that org sternly.
The other two don’t cite reporting news as their objective. Instead they are interested in promoting their causes…by that fact they cease to be objective and are biased toward their causes
Last edited:
F
Feanor2
Guest
So here’s the problem. I, and others, don’t post links from the National Catholic Reporter as they are pretty biased and unreliable. The same goes for lifesite, remnant, even Breitbart- which for some reason likes Pope bashing.
I just think it would be more constructive if, on CAF, we posted news articles from established respectable sources- not propaganda pieces from the right OR left.
People like the drama though.
I just think it would be more constructive if, on CAF, we posted news articles from established respectable sources- not propaganda pieces from the right OR left.
People like the drama though.
D
drcube
Guest
No, I don’t care. I just answer posts.
Except it was pertinent and you choosing to ignore it when you quoted me made it a misrepresentation of what I said. Which, I find funny, when you are complaining that I don’t take certain posters seriously because of their tendency to misrepresent information.
You should have quoted the whole text instead of selecting quoting part of the text.
Responding isn’t caring. Responding is responding. You seem to have the two confused.
It says a lot when someone only includes part of a quote to misrepresent what a poster said.
D
drcube
Guest
Well, Raymond Arroyo is certainly entitled to his personal opinions about politics, but, if he is going to appear as a partisan on Fox News, I am certainly not going to take anything he says on his Catholic News show seriously. You can’t do both.
And you have absolutely pegged it here. It makes the Church look small. That absolutely pegs the problem.
Asked earlier.
Did you not mean ‘yes’? You did say that, didn’t you? Did all of the explanation mean ‘no’ instead?
Did the direct quote of yours not actually say what you meant it to say?
I did quote an entire sentence, it is not like a pulled a fragment out and distorted it.