A verbatim transcipt of a conversation is a rendering of precisely what was said, word for word. The version of the conversation quoted in this post is paraphrased. It is not verbatim. It consists of the narrator’s narrative summary and interpretation of what was said. You see the difference?

‘Pardon us for our inclination to believe the version RightGirl posted.”

That inclination surprises me not in the least. The narrator’s version was clearly written to elicit exactly that response, as was Right Girl’s decision to post those excerpts. I am simply pointing out the world of difference between:
- a paraphrased, edited narrative posted by an ideologue on an ideological site, and
- a transcript.

“This seems to fall right in line with what we have come to expect from socialists…..and communists, behavior. For some odd reason, religion scares the hell out of them. ”

Not really. Religion doesn’t scare me, except when it seems to shut down folks’ capacity for rational thought - I think abortion clinic bombers and Islamist suicide terrorists are equally nuts.

Socialist Christians tend to view Christ as a proto-socialist, and I think there’s at least as good an argument to made for that position, based on scripture, as for the position that he was a capitalist.

For some odd reason, religion scares the hell out of them. They seem to view Christianity as a direct threat to their idealogy, and as history shows, they’d be right.

One is left to believe you don’t because it doesn’t. We wait breathlessly for your further edification……expecting to die waiting.

On the other hand, I find the actions of the HRC here to be despicable. If you want to be a bigoted prick, you should have that right without needing everyone around you to sign consent forms. Ignorance should not be a crime.

Christians have always been big fans of people being free to do what they tell them. Maybe that’s where you’re getting confused.

Unless, of course, you read the document in context.

What you are citing is an ideologue, providing an edited, narrative account on an ideological website. It is not a transcript. It includes no commentary, response or rebuttal from the HRC person, who seems simply to have been responding sympathetically, and helpfully, to a fairly leading question: how do I make sure I’m ABSOLUTELY covered?

It’s great anti-HRC propaganda, but only if accept it as completly accurate, and read it with the intent of getting angry. Which is, of course, your goal.