Pope Francis tells boy whose dog had died that heaven is open to all

[Feral Child]

48. Indeed,

I admit to being a bit heavy-handed in my expository style. It's a conceit, surely, but is often misunderstood as arrogance.

Truth is I'm pretty reclusive and my normal social outlets consist of greetings to grocery cashiers and being lectured by health-care professionals; therefore, I tend to be a bit extravagant in expression here and the one other internet social network I belong to. I happen to enjoy well-crafted prose. I'm sorry that some find me insufferable and merely ask that my critics attempt to consider there may be reasons they can't see, flaws other than mere smart-assedness (if I may be allowed a neologism).

I find your concerns a bit curious. I haven't attacked you personally, in fact I wasn't aware of your existence until I read your unsolicited criticism. Which of us is offended, and which of us should be?

I humbly accept your criticism, but I have to counter that my exposition here was on-point, whereas yours merely consists of an attempt to injure my feelings and fails to contribute to the discussion here.

If I wanted to be a dick about it, I'd edit your post with red ink and hand it back to you with an appropriate grade, but instead I'll apologize for annoying you and ask that you consider that others have personality flaws and social ineptitudes. Perhaps you have some flaws of your own. It would seem that digression could be one of them.

Back on topic, do you have any substantial criticism to my message other than the way I expressed it?

A terse summation of my post, for those offended by elocution: He's a hypocrite and has lied to this boy in order to please an uncritical crowd; more a politician than a leader.
That's still wordy but more succinct.

Do you disagree with my premise? I'll certainly listen to a counter argument and resist any temptation to critique your response syntactically.

If the only point you wish to make is that you don't like me, I'll take that under advisement.