>merits an apology. You really dont' want to back off your
>condescending statements in #23, #50, #143?

not at all.

if i knew then what i know now i wouldn't have made some of those statements. but armed w/the same info as i had then i'd make those statements again. which means i offer no apology.

>You really want to double down on Kim Davis's version of the
>story by adding a vatican conspiracy and cover-up rather than
>admit their might be some truth to the Vatican's more
>practical explanation that she was invited to a meet and greet
>by a US official and the pope greeted her without really
>knowing who she was?

i didn't say i'd 'double down'.

>It just seems to me very american-centric to think the pope
>would know who Kim Davis was an request an audience with her.

i'm sure it seems that way to you.