"let him try" is a veiled threat, @Saveusfromhell
Repeating the claim and underlining the phrase
does not show that it is. You're repeating the premise, not proving it. That's some Argumentum ad Nauseam Fallacy on your chin, dear. :D
Incidentally, yes, you and Jeffrey Ade are, still, unintentionally incorrect. Gary Lockwood calling me a "two-bit blowhard" isn't Ad Hominem fallacy, any more than my reply to him.
Asking me what I think the Pope will do isn't an argument
. My refusing to answer Mistuh Lockwood isn't an argument, either. He asked rudely, received a surly, disdainful answer, and that's that. Whoops. . ;-)"it implies consequences for his actions, not his ability to carry it out."
...and you still
haven't shown any
such consequences will come from Cuthbert Mayne
. That's a Non Sequitur fallacy. On the contrary, any resulting consequences from Pope Francis' failure will come from his own
actions, not Cuthbert Mayne or Mccallansteve or anyone else.
You really must
stop using "veiled" to introduce claims that weren't made. It's sloppy and those shenanigans simply don't work on me."As unlike "walking on water" which would require a miracle,"
St. Peter managed the feat until his faith failed him. So walking on water requires faith
. The miracle is incidental. I refer you to Christ's famous comparison to the faith the size of a mustard seed. ;-)"it is without question within his ability and power to abolish Summorum Pontificum..."
It is without question you haven't shown evidence supporting the claim and with good reason. Pope Francis' current strategy is to "interpret" Summorum Pontificum into meaning the opposite of what it says, not to abolish it. Even in this, the CDF doesn't share The Pope's opinion, much less yours. ;-)
Your tortured interpretations of what Mccallansteve said, the emojis used, or your additonal
interpretations of Cuthbert's reply to the former's comment, isn't a quote stating a threat. It's your interpretation which, as I've shown elsewhere, is itself fraught with errors. So again, you haven't shown a threat made by Cuthber
t What you have
shown is just how far you'll go to invent one."I also appreciate the unspoken acknowledgement by your post, (offering a defense, albeit weak, to cuthbert and then asking him to join in) that it takes a tag team to defeat my logical posts."
Your "logical posts" are invariably fallacies. :D
Such as, fabricating claims like "and then asking him to join in
". That particular "logical postt" is directly contradicted by my own statement, "I'll let Cuthbert address the questions you asked of him."
Since I need to spell it out for you, I'm letting Cuthbert fight his own battles and answer the question you directly asked to him, not to me
When I defer questions to the person they were originally addressed to
, I'm not asking
them to answer the questions. I'm stating that I
will not answer them. Whether the person being asked
chooses to answer your questions or not is their own
business. Therefore, I didn't ask Cuthbert to join and your "logical post" is exposed as an outright fabrication.
Again, you're falling back on a bad habit (a long series Strawman fallacies, btw) of introducing claims that weren't made
via phrases like "veiled
" and "unspoken
". In this case the "acknowledgement" was unspoken because no such acknowledgement was ever made in the first place.
, Saveusfromhell, is how logic truly
works as you're discovering to your chagrin. ;-)