<p><i>While, on the other hand, ‘trollish’ isn’t even in my good ol’ Webster’s (which, ahem, was my point vyse.) Irony.</i></p>
<p>Neither is “lol”, but this is the internet, and “trollish” is accepted vernacular to describe someone who’s flame-baiting.</p>
<p>Well then you used the word inappropriately since I don’t think anyone was ‘flame-baiting’ on this thread.</p>
<p>Your pretension isn’t amusing. “DS”, “DD”, and countless other temrs I see people use in here aren’t in the dictionary either. I didn’t know you had a monopoly on deciding what net speak is ok and what isn’t.</p>
<p>ummm… okay?</p>
<p>I posted this question earlier but have not seen a response .sjmom2329 would you please respond?</p>
<p>Bush’s personal support of the death penalty </p>
<hr>
<p>sjmom2329 </p>
<p>Is my information correct that the RC church also opposes the death penalty .since Geo. W. Bush supports the death penalty and has in fact allowed people to die because of Bush’s personal support of the death penalty does that effect the way the both you and the RC church perceive him as a leader and if so how do you perceive him?</p>
<p>Unaccustomed as I am to defending SJMom…(sheesh, first FF in another thread, now this), she is under no obligation to answer any question posed here. </p>
<p>I pose questions that have received no answer all the time. Shrug. It goes with the territory. I just keep them deployed in reserve for the next time the subject arises. E.g., define “victory” in Iraq in terms of who controls Iraq and under what circumstances. It’s one thing to annoy your rhetorical adversaries, it’s another to badger them.</p>
<p>Gee, theDad, nice to see that civility in disagreement still exists.</p>
<p>(One man’s “badgering” is several women’s “stalking.”)</p>
<p>There’s also the possibility that if one doesn’t get an answer, that their posts are unread or ignored and will never be answered. Just a thought.</p>
<p>
Indeed.</p>
<p>Just because one is free to express an opinion does not mean that others are not free to completely ignore it.</p>
<p>I often…not always, and sometimes I’m just too tired and cranky to take care…frame a question to a broader audience than the person to whose post I’m responding to, so that the lack of response from one person doesn’t signify much in the ongoing discussion/debate/bloodfest. </p>
<p>And sometimes posters just suffer from squid-in-mouth. (E.g., consider the reaction you get when you enter a room with a squid dangling from your mouth.)</p>
<p>Oh well, wasn’t THAT just a lovely visual, TheDad. Ewwwwww.</p>
<p>Line after line after line on Democrats, Catholics and abortion and no one wants to answer a question about the death penalty, fine.</p>
<p>I dont assume anyone has to respond, I just ask that they please do.</p>
<p>ZM, where I come from, coming up with lovely visuals with mere words is considered a <em>good</em> thing. Can’t claim credit for this one, though…it’s stolen from the Turkey City (a writer’s group) Lexicon for identifying and critiquing problems in fiction manuscripts.</p>
<p>Very interesting, TheDad. I was actually amused, if that didn’t come through. So can we call you Squid Face now?</p>
<p>You may call me anything you like. However, I don’t think the term is appropriate for anything that I’ve said in this forum. If you want to try out titles for me, something along the lines of “Your Excellency” would do just fine, though such formality is antithetical to my temperament and not really in keeping with my character. “D’s Dad” and “Mr. TheMom” are about the only titles I ordinarily use. A nick name such as “Savien” or “Inigo” might also do; much better than “Savonarola,” which one poster used.</p>
<p>Some things that I’ve thought, certainly, might qualify for your suggestion but that’s why it’s good that the fingers just don’t type without any mediation whatsoever. However, if I employed the kind of “oversight” favored by Bush, Cheney, and the whole rotten motley crew, it would be a different matter.</p>
<p>I know this is completely off-topic…but I am curious about something. I notice unusual seemingly unintelligible fonts in both btm’s and tommybill’s posts a few pages back. </p>
<p>I’m no computer whiz…what is that?? Is it my computer?</p>
<p>ldmom06, you mean like post 49 and 51? The last time something similar happened there was a simple fix, but I can’t remember what it is. Mathson could tell me! It has something to do with copying from Word documents and code getting screwed up I think.</p>
<p>mathmom - I see it in post 66, 74, 125, 130… I wonder if everyone else sees the same thing? Does this mean the text in the post is copied from a word doc and pasted here? </p>
<p>Interesting…I’ve seen this before, but…ya know…hated to ask a stooopid question. ;)</p>
<p>From Post 136…“Does this mean the text in the post is copied from a word doc and pasted here…” </p>
<p>that is how I post most of the time…</p>
<p>I don’t see it after I change the setting that needs changing, but I do see it now, I wonder why it reverted to the bad setting? Mathson comes home tonight, I’ll ask him if someone doesn’t post the fix before then.</p>
<p>Mathson comes home tonight, I’ll ask him </p>
<p>its good to have the younger people around when it comes time to “fix” the new stuff</p>
<p>Hope you and your family have a wonderfull holiday</p>
<p>tommybill, I wouldn’t presume to speak for sjmom, but in the run-up to the 2004 elections, I happened to visit a very conservative Catholic parish. The church was distributing some tracts about the ethics of voting, and the tract made the distinction (I’m paraphrasing here) between policies that the church leadership supports, such as the abolition of the death penalty, and policies that the church leadership mandates, such as the abolition of legal abortion. It suggested that if there is no candidate who agrees with the church on everything, you should vote for one who agrees with the church on the issues of greater importance. That may be the logic of some Catholics who support Republicans despite the death penalty.</p>
<p>There are also people (myself included) who are not opposed to the death penalty in principle, only in practice. In other words, if I saw every capital defendant getting a good lawyer and a fair, racially unbiased trial, and if I saw capital charges reserved for the most cupable defendants, I wouldn’t have a problem with the death penalty. I oppose it because that’s not what I see. So I don’t mind voting for a pro-death-penalty candidate who I believe will work towards administering the death penalty appropriately.</p>