Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Here's the deal.

This is the post that I think offended Amy so much.

So let me explain.

I posted my answers to her original comments as a way of illustrating that Catholic Doctrine does have some basis in scripture. I prefaced those comments with:

Again I do thank you for your gracious courtesy. I will be happy to
reply to your concerns if that is your wish.

And then I addressed them.

When Amy responded I wanted to make sure that she actually wanted to debate (which I was happy to do.) But before I went down that path I wanted to ask if it that was okay. Which I did. THere's no evidence of it because Amy didn't publish the comment.

Now, why would I do that? Because in the past I have taken a lot of time to type out replies only to have them NOT published. Candy and Amanda's blogs are examples. There are others as well. I was enjoying the discussion with Amy. I thought she would be different, but I wanted to see if she was willing to go on before I put the time into it. That's all. That was my big sinister plan!! bwahahahaha!!

In the meantime Amy did go on about how I was persecuting Candy with this blog.

I answered that too but again ,she did not allow the comment. I put a paraphrase of it here.

While I was waiting to see if Amy wanted to continue I did address the end of her comments. I posted a link to her blog so that my readers could see her comments in their entirety. IN NO WAY DID I INSINUATE THAT SHE DID NOT ANSWER!!

Neither did I invite hoards of people to go ther blog and see if she was wrong. What I did was reproduce the letter from Emily (wife with the Catholic husband) and Candy's reply and if I was wrong in my assessment that Candy's advice was wrong.

Amy then wrote this:
PS- What is persecution if not a blog devoted entirely to ripping apart a single person, such as your "Trip into Candyland"? If she were copy and paste pictures of your family, and call all Christians to attack you and boycott your blog, then I would take her to task for unbiblical behavior.

She did not reply that she wanted to go on with the discussion. I thought then that we were through and I decided not to try to come up with more argumentation because, frankly, I was just a bit disheartened. Sorry. I'm human.

She wrote her final comments about how the debate was over. ANd then she called me a fool.

Couple more things. Amy wrote:
As to why I opted out, again, I didn't appreciate that only parts of my comments were posted on Elena's blog. Putting as link to my blog in case anyone wanted to read what I really wrote was not fair in my opinion.

I totally don't get that. I post links to people all of the time! I love it when people link to me. When I started blogging back inthe dark ages (2003) that was considered a GOOD THING!

I also received comments form people who are 'regulars' at Elena's site, which is fine, exceott hat they were mean and threatening (don't worry about purgatory- you'll find out when you get there!!!). Too childish to be called an honest debate.

I agree and I am a big opponant of ad hominem attacks. I totally would not have supported that and I apologize for it.

No comments: