Oh dear, there seems to be a miscommunication here, when my agreement with you is taken as smugness.  If agreement equates to smugness, then the proposition with which I am agreeing necessarily must be flawed.  If it is snarky to merely restate a position, then the position must have an issue.

If the message was the main draw, as you now claim, having pivoted from your earlier position, why must the main draw now be the food?  Does the Church not offer the same message?

Labels: moderation: safe