Skip to main content

View Diary: New Information Emerges on Pope John Paul II (308 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Betty, from what I've been reading... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonga 23, Denver11

    ... it seems that you are skating to the edge of the ad hominem attack line with Doc2, Ralphdog and pollwatcher.  They are questioning the evidence related to this diary, while you and SeaTurtle seem to be taking it personally.  They appear to believe that there is some ambiguity in some of the facts presented here, they have that right.

    I haven't been here long enough to be considered a Kossack, does that mean that I'm just a sack?

    by Hey338Too on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 10:08:44 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Thanks, Hey338Too. You are correct. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Hey338Too, cotterperson
    •  Unfortunately they aren't questioning the evidence (8+ / 0-)

      They are instead not looking at evidence and calling it CT.

      They appear to believe that there is some ambiguity in some of the facts presented here, they have that right.
      Claiming people are spreading conspiracy theories is not questioning facts.

      There revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

      by AoT on Wed Jul 04, 2012 at 10:24:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. Questioning evidence is what I'm doing. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        nickrud, Tonga 23, Denver11, Hey338Too

        The original diary does not present any objective evidence. It cites assertions by a well known writer of crime & punishment pot-boilers and an anti-Vatican scandal rag. David Yallop should not be anyone's standard of reliable evidence, unless you are aiming for a John Stossel level of 'accuracy'.

        Don't get me wrong; as I've said above, I despise current Vatican leadership. Actual real world evidence indicates that it is breathtakingly incompetent, grotesquely devoted to shielding pedophiles from prosecution, and financially corrupt.

        But this diary makes extraordinary claims, ranging from diplomatic skullduggery to the supposed murder of a Pope(!) without presenting any actual evidence beyond third-hand unsubstantiated assertions by 'journalists' with quite dubious track records.

        •  Yet you claim "real world evidence" without (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, SeaTurtle, G2geek, KenBee

          citations that the Vatican is "breathtakingly incompetent, grotesquely devoted to shielding pedophiles and financially corrupt" and then claim that I am making "extraordiary claims" about "diplomatic skullduggery" and a "supposed murder"?

          •  I didn't write a diary, friend. Burden's on you. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            I didn't put unsupported assertions out there as the body of a published Daily Kos diary for public comment. Doing so requires a level of evidence & documentation of inflammatory assertions, or you take your lumps.

            I could spend the next two days listing documentation for my comments; I would start with Gary Wills' wonderful book Papal Sin, which goes into great detail about the Banco Ambrosiano scandal among other topics. But life's too short for me to spend more time on this. And I didn't write a diary requiring some evidence to back up its extraordinary claims.

            Did I write anything that is factually incorrect?
            I believe you are descending to the ad hominen here.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site