after just 4 days of Pope Francis
very fair and open minded posts from me,
you feel you know all about us both.
Your eagerness to accept one view in this argument
a balancing view,
very short sighted.
Anyone interested in truth should be open to all views, not just the one that backs up their preconceptions.
The first excerpt is rhetoric, of the red herring species. The point is the Archbishop's performance and that was a matter of far more than four days.
The second excerpt is rhetoric. I haven't commented on any of your posts. Also, your first post had no point except to be snarky, as shown by the way the same post fired back at you hit.
The third excerpt is self-pity combined with claims to telepathic powers, imputing an objectionable personal view to me based on no evidence at all. That is, displays malice.
The fourth excerpt also claims telepathic powers and presumes that I haven't rejected much more negative views (which by the way I have,) pretending I am rushing to judgment. Also displays malice.
The fifth except should be a classic example of empty rhetoric. By your lights, what could possibly be a "balancing" view, except blind acceptance of apologetics?
The sixth excerpt is superficially merely a little snarky. My views on the immorality of the Dirty War and the ultimate insignificance of liberation theology are based on memories dating back to Camilo Torres and Archbishop Romero, yet you have dared to presume they are short-sighted. Displays malice.
The last excerpt is more empty rhetoric combined with claims of telepathy. Quite aside from not knowing what my preconceptions are, you have assumed they cannot be fully formed conceptions based on long observation and thinking. Displays malice.
Really, the only way to defend your posts is to hypothesize you're confusing me with someone else.