You still have not provided a single VERBATIM QUOTE supporting your first charge. So now you "bait and switch" from an accusation of "violence" to the oh-so-"woke" second accusation of "anger problem."
By Catholic definition? Or "woke" fembot definition?
I am angry at plenty of things: the occupation of the Church, the occupation of world governments, the genocide, looting, slavery, perversion, and sinfulness accelerating with those things. I am justly angry at the perpetrators and accomplices. I am even angry at my own sins. Are any of those genuinely Catholic angers unjust? I think not.
I'm not even angry at you. You are a mere shrewish annoyance to me and I find you very unlikeable, like a fly at the dinner table. Besides, so what? You don't need my approval or friendship. Angry? No.
I don't get angry at the fly or you. I don't know (or care) who you really are. You are not important to me.
I'm not angry at Sword of Booze 'n Bullshit. He too is an annoyance and, based on his admissions, probably (note: "probably"—just speculating, not judging) has mitigating circuмstances. Maybe he is so far gone into an alcoholic dementia that he is dis-inhibited and no longer culpable. I don't know, but in his case I care enough to push him to give up the booze.
I'm not angry at Lad, just disappointed. Rolling on the ground with an opposite sex student is sinful, but rolling on the ground with an instructor is OK? Mistakes and disagreements are "dishonesty"? 
Very disappointed, but remediable.So, by any Catholic definition, no anger problem.And still NO VERBATIM QUOTES supporting your accusation!
Topic: M79 on Geocentrism:"interesting" - What about Heliocentrism? (Read 9283 times)