Posted on 01/26/2025 10:58:49 AM PST by daniel1212
Unlike you, I host no websites of my own. I don't pimp my own work.
Dude, again, just what is your problem? You are the #1 actual pimp on FR of an elitist invalid "one true church," often posting sites that do solicit, and likely engage in "Adsense," and you (therefore) find fault with my use of anonymous, free (at my expense), non-commercial, non-solicitous (zero ads, sign ups, etc.) web pages (most of whom still do not even have a back link to the home page yet) in substantiating/supporting an argument and or providing support!
Which thus is not promoting a blog or web site for personal remuneration, and in all my 20+ years only one person years ago wanted to sent me money for this site, but which does not even have a donate button/link!.
And yet you also complained about hyperlinks to just them not identifying the source, as if that is required for such (and as said, url's are is easy to see) vs. posting copied content from someone else.
Thus the warranted conclusion is that your actual reason for your accusation is that it refutes the invalid church you promote, which is an object of faith, the source of security for unregenerate TradCaths, and which therefore results in your recourse to what are in reality more spitwads.
For which the advice of the Religion moderator is fitting:
If the other guy is throwing spitwads at you on an “open” thread it probably means he has run out of ammunition. Take it as a backhanded compliment. You won, walk away.
May God grant you “repentance to the acknowledging of the Truth.
He can only post daily articles against his duly and legally elected pope….which depending on the day he may say he recognizes the pope or he doesn’t. He flops more than a caught fish.
If I stumble across a chest of gold coins at the sea shore, I’m sure not gonna waste much time figuring out it’s source!
But that can be a complaint when the gold devalues the currency of another of a mixture of valid and counterfeit coins.
The Torah was written by G-d, not by Moses. Moses was merely a stenographer.
Never heard of it.
You're kidding!
Consider yourself blessed.
Most people across the religious and political spectrum don't associate the "old testament" with Judaism at all. To them it is the "chrstian bible" and the very foundation stone of the whole religion. They just see themselves as discrediting chrstianity, which is the only religion they take seriously enough to attack. Which is an insult to Judaism.
Most non-Jews don't a thing about Judaism. They don't know what the prayer service is like, they don't know that it teaches that the Torah is from Heaven. To most people "Judaism" is Portnoy's Complaint and Lenny Bruce.
I am hoping that you have misunderstood Ebb. He doesn't seem to me to be the type to believe in JEPD. I know he is a creationist.
Unfortunately, most mainstream Catholics have embraced it wholeheartedly for a very long time.
That's such a bold and false assumption to make!
Many Freeepers make posts with hyperlinks within in them; and it's ridiculous to assume all those links are to their own websites. Most hyperlinks I link to reveal the author; yours don't.
If I am linking to my own site, then the author is me unless otherwise stated.That's such a bold and false assumption to make! Many Freeepers make posts with hyperlinks within in them; and it's ridiculous to assume all those links are to their own websites. Most hyperlinks I link to reveal the author; yours don't.
Again, it is your assertion that is a bold and false assumption to make and your fault-seeking objection is vacuous. An author does not need to place a notice of the each safe, informational source - especially with no ads, solicitation - when posting each and every a hyperlink, especially when it is his own material. In contrast, pasting content from external sources is to attributed to such.
And indeed, your own posted articles example lack of notification of sources. For example, the article you posted here [link is to Free Republic!] there are about 8 hyperlinked words to external sources without any identification, but which URL's are easy to see via mouse hover. It seems you were unaware of that, but if you need help, let me know.
And the article you posted here has two two non-identified hyperlinks to external sources without any identification.
This one you posted has 5 to external sources. As does this one.
And the article you posted here has 6 non-identified hyperlinks back to CNN.
And the article you posted here, "His homilies at Casa Santa Marta, often interspersed with tirades against rigorists; his 2014 conversation with Czech bishops during their ad limina apostolorum visit; and his 2016 interview with Fr. Antonio Spadaro SJ," has two non-identified hyperlinks back to the author's site.
Likewise this one.
And this one you posted has about 15 hyperlinks, both back to itself and external sites, none of which have your required notifications!
And all this are very recent ones, and so I am sure I can find more. So unless you are going to tell all such, and all other FReepers (SunkenCiv was just one example) that they are to place a notification of the source for each hyperlink, whether to their own site or external ones, then it is seems rather evident that the reason for your incessant fault-seeking is due to the content of the anonymous free, non-commercial, non-solicitous site - used to save typing and provide support - which you can easily see the URL to via mouse hover. Which again, I will happy to help you with if you find this a problem.
You don’t get it. None of my hyperlinks led back to my own blog site, like you are fond to do.
Thanks, when I post an external link in one of my ponderous links lists, I just note it as such, otherwise, those are all to FR topics. External links that are within something I'm excerpting sometimes make it, usually don't (articles in Archaeology mag generally has a link to the source in the first sentence), it depends. When their source has a bunch of really nice photos that we can't post here due to source, it could be a working link, but will state it, "Phys.org" etc.
No, YOU don’t get it BLM/A….daniel isn’t pimping his blog as you do for others….which begs the question….is it you??
If MY hyperlinks show no author, then you’ll either have to accept the words you’ve read as mine, or else chase them down to show they were someone else’s.
The fact that hardly anyone complains tends to tell me they do not care to actually click on them.
No, You don’t get it: There is absolutely nothing at all wrong with hyperlinks back to my own site, just as so many articles that you post do! Also, besides it being very easy to see the URLfor a link, to further help you, a web site as mine is not a "blog" as this one of mine is.
As for you not posting hyperlinks that lead back to your own blog site, there would be nothing at all wrong with that either as a practice - presuming you have one (and aside from its content) - anymore than it is for articles that you post.
And rather than you actually having any kind of valid complaint that would help your case for Rome, the effect of such peevish flailing allegations is that of providing an argument against being a RC, if this type of spitwading is what it effects, sad to say.
I was referring to posting hyperlinks (thanks) that do not cite the source, as is demanded by the whiner if it is the poster's own site, yet which many articles he posts do not do, as they link back to the writers own site, but which in which case he finds no fault with these RC sites.
Yet, , since implicit in the complaint is the problem that the reader does not know what site he is clicking on (though I told him how easy that is), then he should require all links - whether to the writer's own site or an eternal source - to be accompanied by a notice as to the source. In your case all those links would have to be prefaced with a notice that they are to FR articles. NOT that I am finding fault with such.
The whole thing simply examples certain RC peevishness against anything that impugns their source of security.
Certainly RC's "pimp" their own elitist one true (false) church, with articles that can contain links back to their own sites without any notice, which is demanded by me (as if their was money and or signups etc. involved ) with hyperlinks back to my anonymous, free, non-solicitous site pages.
Related: The term "frivolous" in legal documents refers to claims or lawsuits that have no serious purpose or value. Imagine someone filing a lawsuit just to annoy or embarrass another person, rather than to seek justice. - https://www.legalbriefai.com/legal-terms/frivolous
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.