gadgetlady

OK, THAT is hilarious. It took me a few seconds, but once I got it there was a big ol' belly laugh.

So NOW I know what makes you angry! Faulty computer data entry! Aha! :confused:

Yeah, but that's only cuz you're hard-headed :confused: (ok, I deleted this twice before posting it, because I wasn't sure the JOKING NATURE of it would come through -- but I'm going on faith that it will and posting anyway)

TOM, I want to say again that I really did NOT bring up spelling errors for any purpose other than knowing if you were being serious or not. In fact, I went back and checked to see if those same errors had been made previously in this thread, because the whole thing just seemed "off" to me.

sarcastic, not scarcastic; entendre, not antandre; lbt, not lpt. I don't know if antandre is a second, accepted spelling of entendre, but I'm reasonably sure it's not.

Everyone says this is because of the tax-exempt status of the churches. But Planned Parenthood is a tax-exempt organization too! So yes, it is not at all fair or just. Planned Parenthood can tell you who to vote for, but your minister can't. BTW, Planned Parenthood is holding a discussion next week at a temple in my community. How muddy do those waters get?

:confused: [scratching head] I honestly don't know if you're being sarcastic here or not (based on the 3 spelling errors, which I am distinctly NOT pointing out to shame you but rather to further explain my confusion about your sincerity).

I appreciate your saying that (although I'm not sure which things you consider you erred in; they're probably different from which things I consider you erred in :confused:). BTW, I tell my children that if their "I'm sorry" is followed by a "but", they're not really sorry.

AMEN, sister? (Can I say "Amen" to an athiest? :confused:) It is also a peeve of mine but I certainly don't have the right to judge. Some people are naturally better at spelling than others (or they don't have arthritis). I have a friend who developed Rheumatoid Arthritis at a VERY young age and her typing has gone downhill fast. We never know the cause behind the symptom we are judging. An I think when someone ridicules someone else over something so petty they are just showing how judgmental they are (especially when they're not error-free -- and I haven't read posts from ANYONE on this board that aren't error-free).

My point was that the right is just as afraid of the left as the left is of the right. And each side has what they see as a justifiable reason for their concern. I think a lot of countries are struggling with similar problems. In 2004, a pastor in Sweden was sentenced to a month in prison when his sermon included Biblical references about homosexuality. I'm sure he's not the only one who has suffered such a charge.

As an aside, I do believe there is a double standard. As an example, I've seen all sorts of people ridicule Ron for making typos or spelling errors, even when those people are not free from errors themselves; he has told us he is arthritic so I think we should cut him some slack. But the jabs keep coming.

I've been called "honey" or "sweetie" or "darling" or something along those lines at least twice in other threads. Even though it was clearly meant as a slam, it didn't seem to inflame anyone at the time; in fact, no one seemed to care. Now if they had accidentally typed "sweaty", I imagine they would have gotten all sorts of responses :confused:.

Oh, Heavens to Betsy. Did I use a bad word? Shame on me. But you can't blame me, surely. We terrorists don't have any concept of the sensitivities of the world around us. Saying "no-brainer" couldn't possibly be a figure of speech. It must mean that you think others don't have a brain and are inferior to you. Silly me. :faint:

You were replying to me. It seems to be a no-brainer that it was directed at me. And it is pretty clear that you (and others on this thread who agree with you on most positions) believe that all of us Christian fundamentalist fanatical terrorists believe that the US should be a theocracy.

Isn't the reverse also true? Didn't Canada pass Bill C-250, a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality?

You know, I see you get upset over and over when other people submit posts that you read to imply various things about you. In that same vein, I resent your implications about me and the beliefs to which I subscribe. I don't think the USA should be a theocracy. I don't think the president is a king. And I know the First Amendment quite well. In case you don't, it says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. In other words, unlike the country of England from which they had just come, the Founding Fathers did not want the United States to have an official religion. And we don't. That doesn't mean religions of various types can't influence our politics or our society. It means that the GOVERNMENT doesn't run the CHURCH, and there is no OFFICIAL CHURCH established by the government.

Ain't that the truth! I'll never forget when the pundits used to say he clearly won the debates he was in, but of course it didn't matter because he couldn't win the nomination. I know their saying this affected the way people voted. What the heck is the point of the debates if you won't allow the winner to win?

I know that's never happened in any of the churches I've attended. I know because I pay attention and I would like to SEE it happen! I'm always disappointed when it doesn't. Call me a Christian Fundamentalist Fanatic Terrorist (oh, sorry, that's already been said about me) if you want. I also believe people should have to pass a test of their basic understanding of American government before they can vote.

I wouldn't vote for Obama, but not because he's black. I DID vote for Alan Keyes.

And I'm glad I'm back so I can deflect your challenges from her to me. She's been through enough recounting that gruesome story to have to then be challenged about its veracity. I'm sure you know that the punishment doesn't always fit the crime. You can find many examples of that just as easily in 2006 or 2007 as you can in the 1980's. And I didn't say you were ridiculing her. You assumed I did. I said ridicule or challenge. And I believe what you were doing was challenging her.

I've been absent from this thread today because I haven't had time, but I just wanted to say to leatha_g, Sunta, and BJean, thank you for posting experiences out of your personal life that have influenced your opinions on a variety of subjects. I am truly sorry all of you have experienced such pain in your life. I think when we expose ourselves like you all have, while we do open ourselves up to potential ridicule or challenge (and leatha_g, I'm especially sorry this has happened to you tonight) the upside is we have the potential to open people's eyes to things they may have never considered before.

Is that the criterion? I don't know. I've never studied it.

I love how Fox News calls them homicide bombings. Which really is much more accurate. I never knew they weren't considered a Crime Against Humanity or a War Crime. Darned sure should be.

leatha_g, have I said lately that I love your posts? Because I do. I had no intention of commenting other than the emoticons. I think the statement speaks for itself.

I do understand what you're saying. What I was asking about was your reasoning. LOL! That's really funny, when you think about it. They just believe I'm going to rot when I die.