Philadelphia Archbishop: “There Is No Such Thing as an ‘LGBTQ Catholic'”

[Keith&Co.]

So, anyway, aside from the side trip thru lionland, you would think the Pennsylvania dioceses would be working extra hard to avoid controversy, wouldn't you?

Or attention.

Especially headlines.

 

[Rhea]

I find it fascinating that Lion is comfortable claiming “stats” without ever saying where they are from and how they were acquired.

[...]

He doesn’t even answer direct questions seeking the data source; one that, history shows, TFT members are totally willing to review for him. He doesn’t even answer. It’s like questions about primary sources are nothing more than a Peanutsian Wua-wua-wua to him. I geuinely wonder if he even really knows what a “stat” is? Fascinating example of Catholicism. They’ll believe anything without proof and they think everyone else will, too.

bilby thinks these stats are claims made by me - that I invented these stats.
He says no reasonable would believe them.

I can’t help but wonder what goes thru Lion’s mind when he is directly asked for a source and pretend he wasn’t directly asked.

I wonder, is he scatterbrained and forgot that he was asked?
Is he hiding something and he’s trying to distract?
Does he really not know why we would want to see the source? He’s flummoxed by why people don’t just believe when a person tells them something, because thaat’s how he comes to believe things?
Or maybe it’s all deliberate and he’s like the Serpent.

Fascinating watchng him not address direct questions and pondering why he might be behaving that way.

 

[abaddon]

I can’t help but wonder what goes thru Lion’s mind when he is directly asked for a source and pretend he wasn’t directly asked.

I wonder, is he scatterbrained and forgot that he was asked?
Is he hiding something and he’s trying to distract?
Does he really not know why we would want to see the source? He’s flummoxed by why people don’t just believe when a person tells them something, because thaat’s how he comes to believe things?
Or maybe it’s all deliberate and he’s like the Serpent.

Fascinating watchng him not address direct questions and pondering why he might be behaving that way.

Judging by his own self-description, possibly hoping people will berate him so an imaginary audience can see how sorely abused he is.

 

[Lion IRC]

I find it fascinating that Lion is comfortable claiming “stats” without ever saying where they are from and how they were acquired.

[...]

He doesn’t even answer direct questions seeking the data source; one that, history shows, TFT members are totally willing to review for him. He doesn’t even answer. It’s like questions about primary sources are nothing more than a Peanutsian Wua-wua-wua to him. I geuinely wonder if he even really knows what a “stat” is? Fascinating example of Catholicism. They’ll believe anything without proof and they think everyone else will, too.

bilby thinks these stats are claims made by me - that I invented these stats.
He says no reasonable would believe them.

I can’t help but wonder what goes thru Lion’s mind when he is directly asked for a source and pretend he wasn’t directly asked.

I wonder, is he scatterbrained and forgot that he was asked?
Is he hiding something and he’s trying to distract?
Does he really not know why we would want to see the source? He’s flummoxed by why people don’t just believe when a person tells them something, because thaat’s how he comes to believe things?
Or maybe it’s all deliberate and he’s like the Serpent.

Fascinating watchng him not address direct questions and pondering why he might be behaving that way.

I'm not pretending I wasn't asked.
I don't care that I was asked.
People ask for the source as if it would actually make a difference to their views on the subject to which those stats relate.
The stats don't lie. And I've seen too many people ask for citations then proceed to act entirely as if they hadn't been provided. What a waste of time.
I'm not your google bus boy.

 

[Rhea]

I'm not pretending I wasn't asked.
I don't care that I was asked.
People ask for the source as if it would actually make a difference to their views on the subject to which those stats relate.

It would; or, at least, it’s the only thing that would. Because

The stats don't lie.

And we know that better than you do.

And I've seen too many people ask for citations then proceed to act entirely as if they hadn't been provided. What a waste of time.

Then don’t bring them up. All the serious people who bring up stats provide a source, regardless of whether the audience heeds them, because that actual data matters for its own sake.

I'm not your google bus boy.

That would be if I asked you to google something _I_ claimed.
What we have here is we expect you to have googled what YOU claim.
And then you don’t have to google it for us, beecause presumably you already googled it for yourself. You have nothing to google if your claims are actually based on data.

So it sounds like you’re saying you’re just posting stuff that you never looked up and you wont look up now because you think we won’t believe whatever you now google.

But if you already have the data, just post it.
If you have to google for it, you never had it.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Have to remember that response next time Lion can't figure out the difference between ignoring and 'added to ignore list.'

He's not ignoring the question, he's just assuming everyone will ignore the citation, so he'll spend more time explaining why there's no use in providing a source than he would have spent providing the source and then saying 'I knew it.'

 

[atrib]

I can’t help but wonder what goes thru Lion’s mind when he is directly asked for a source and pretend he wasn’t directly asked.

I wonder, is he scatterbrained and forgot that he was asked?
Is he hiding something and he’s trying to distract?
Does he really not know why we would want to see the source? He’s flummoxed by why people don’t just believe when a person tells them something, because thaat’s how he comes to believe things?
Or maybe it’s all deliberate and he’s like the Serpent.

Fascinating watchng him not address direct questions and pondering why he might be behaving that way.

I'm not pretending I wasn't asked.
I don't care that I was asked.
People ask for the source as if it would actually make a difference to their views on the subject to which those stats relate.
The stats don't lie. And I've seen too many people ask for citations then proceed to act entirely as if they hadn't been provided. What a waste of time.
I'm not your google bus boy.

Another non-post from LIRC.

The stats don't lie.

But people do. Given your history of posting misleading information and outright lies on these forums, I am not willing to take your word on anything.

While numbers reported in polls conducted by trustworthy sources can usually be accepted as fact, the basis for the numbers (questions asked and question wording for example) and the interpretation of the raw data can often be debated. But since you have provided no source for your claims, they can discarded without any discussion.

And I've seen too many people ask for citations then proceed to act entirely as if they hadn't been provided.

While not specific to citations, your posting habits in these forums are exactly as you have stated. You make up shit, people post rebuttals, you ignore the rebuttals, and repeat the same bullshit claim again. Want me to provide citations (links) to support my claim?

 

[blastula]

"72% of Christians who read Lion's posts become Satanists." Stats don't lie.

 

[Rhea]

"72% of Christians who read Lion's posts become Satanists." Stats don't lie.

Pretty sure that was 71.3% Don't lie by rounding, now.