Well, see, your sin is the other side of the coin from ours, isn't it? I've reviewed your charges in detail and can see some room for improvement on our side. One of the things necessary is that you and we have an understanding of how the policy against attack is to be applied rigorously and evenly across the board to each of us. If we reach that understanding, might some of your statements about Catholics be judged as going beyond doctrinal criticism into attack on individuals for their reasonable beliefs and affiliations? We must use caution. Do you want us to answer this request you asked us?

He would bash Catholics, spewing vile misrepresentations of them whenever a known Catholic commented.

Show this to us, pagan. Bring your comments that precede them also.

It might be easier for you to just say you might've gone overboard in the past about Catholics, or Orthodox, than for us to actually list the evidence for CIAMM's assertion. Our making a counterclaim isn't that important. I've found the comments CIAMM made that seem to be the primary provocations to you, but that doesn't mean all your comments were provoked either.

So I'd suggest that we finesse that question by making it some kind of vague stipulation that'll be good enough for CIAMM to not object over, because having done that we can get to the meat you have on how bad veneration is and the difference from other forms of human respect, things like that. We don't even have to make it RCC-bashing because we can stick to bashing the EO so as to keep it among our sphere of experience, and it'll probably be easier to find agreement about it before we get to the thornier excesses of the RCC (both in individuals' abuses and in apologetic fencing).

Well, see, your sin is the other side of the coin from ours, isn't it? I've reviewed your charges in detail and can see some room for improvement on our side. One of the things necessary is that you and we have an understanding of how the policy against attack is to be applied rigorously and evenly across the board to each of us. If we reach that understanding, might some of your statements about Catholics be judged as going beyond doctrinal criticism into attack on individuals for their reasonable beliefs and affiliations? We must use caution. Do you want us to answer this request you asked us?

He would bash Catholics, spewing vile misrepresentations of them whenever a known Catholic commented.

Show this to us, pagan. Bring your comments that precede them also.

It might be easier for you to just say you might've gone overboard in the past about Catholics, or Orthodox, than for us to actually list the evidence for CIAMM's assertion. Our making a counterclaim isn't that important. I've found the comments CIAMM made that seem to be the primary provocations to you, but that doesn't mean all your comments were provoked either.

So I'd suggest that we finesse that question by making it some kind of vague stipulation that'll be good enough for CIAMM to not object over, because having done that we can get to the meat you have on how bad veneration is and the difference from other forms of human respect, things like that. We don't even have to make it RCC-bashing because we can stick to bashing the EO so as to keep it among our sphere of experience, and it'll probably be easier to find agreement about it before we get to the thornier excesses of the RCC (both in individuals' abuses and in apologetic fencing).