Glory to Jesus Christ!
I�m sorry, John, but your response to my request for a retraction and an apology is just not going to cut it. I expect you to abide by the same stringent standards you and your moderators demand of others. See, e.g., the cases of djs and Rufinus, both of whom, as you will no doubt recall, were asked to retract their offending statements before the entire Forum and were subsequently banned for failure to show adequate repentance.
You have publicly accused me of having written and/or implied something that I most certainly did not. I take this accusation very seriously and hope that you do, too.
Unfortunately, I�m not sure you do. Rather than retract and apologize, you have chosen to defend yourself. Your defense is not only personally insulting but objectively weak. You initially claimed the following:
I do remember a post in the recently closed thread in which Theophilos seemed to complain that those who disagree with the RDL were all nasty people and that they should be censored.
(my emphasis)
Now it is no longer a singular post in which I seem to have asserted that critics of the RDL are �all nasty people,� but instead the general �tenor� of my two deleted posts � and, for good measure, some of my other posts from months past (not directly referenced by you, of course). You also claim that the conclusion you have drawn is a �logical� one based upon my �actual words.� Which specific words, John? Did I not say that �all snittty, sniveling, yipping, and haughty comments� should be forbidden, regardless of posters� point of view? If you actually have formal training in logic, perhaps you could provide a demonstration for me and the rest of the Forum? Not to toot my own horn, but I am trained as a philosopher, and, try as I might, I have no clue how you logically came to the conclusion you did.
As you are aware, I objected to two particular statements by Slavipodvizhnik and Etnick that seemed uncharitable to me, and wondered aloud why they were not admonished as others have been for similar statements. I also responded to them in a comparably uncharitable fashion � which was intentional, by the way. So, what specific part of my response to these two posters led you to conclude that I consider �all� critics of the RDL to be �nasty people�? Since I am critical of much of the RDL, does that mean I consider myself a nasty person, too? Am I just a self-hating Ruthenian?
It�s not enough, however, that you refuse to apologize for your mischaracterization of my deleted posts. You also have the gall to claim that �some of [my] posts on this forum over the past year� provide further confirmation that I think all critics of the RDL are �nasty.� I admit that I have, on occasion, written uncharitable things, although I would argue that these have been mainly, if not exclusively, responses to what I perceived as uncharitable provocations by other posters (Elijahmaria, Father Serge, and you yourself). Oh, and I�m sure I�ve also had some uncharitable things to say about a certain Byzantine Catholic hierarch � also provoked, albeit not on this Forum.
I challenge you to prove your point. If you cannot � and I am certain that you cannot � I expect you to be a man, take responsibility for saying something libelous, retract the statement, and apologize.
In Christ,
Theophilos
P.S. Since you chose to critique my �department of redundancy department� quip to Etnick, I would also like to point out for the record � and as I told Etnick in a private message -- that it was not meant to be mean-spirited or a personal attack; hence the winking emoticon.
