Execution takes 2 hours, 10 tries, condemned man given bathroom break in the middle

gadgetlady · June 12, 2007

Nope. You're wrong. You said early on that you weren't for capital punishment because it was a deterrent, and I accepted that as the gospel according to gadget.
. . .

Consequently I didn't make you out to have an agenda at that point, your behavior did.

I have never, ever said I was against capital punishment because it wasn't a deterrent. In fact, that's not why I'm against it -- so I wouldn't have said it. You're putting words in my mouth and then assuming from there that I must have an agenda. I do NOT have an agenda and I do NOT base my feelings about capital punishment on the presence or lack of a deterrent effect.

It isn't fair for you to blame me for something I haven't said or done, nor is it fair for you to say that I said something or other that I did not say.

Show me where I said I'm against capital punishment because of the lack of a deterrent effect, please. If you don't want to waste your time, don't go back and look because you will not find it. What's happening here is you're being just plain contrary: if I post it, you find something wrong with it. Period.

BJean · June 13, 2007

No, once again you're wrong. Perhaps you're reading through my ultra long posts too quickly. I can't blame you for that!

I never said you were against capital punishment, because it is or is not a deterrent. Your posts gave the impression you are FOR capital punishment and that you think that it is a deterrent. If that is not what you believe or want us to believe (which I think is sometimes the case) then it is great that you straighten us out by posting exactly what you want us to think you believe.

gadgetlady · June 13, 2007

No, once again you're wrong. Perhaps you're reading through my ultra long posts too quickly.

Nope, once again you're wrong. Perhaps you're writing too quickly.

I never said you were against capital punishment, because it is or is not a deterrent.

How about here:

You said early on that you weren't for capital punishment because it was a deterrent

I DID say early on I wasn't for capital punishment, but I never said it was because it was or wasn't a deterrent.

Your posts gave the impression you are FOR capital punishment and that you think that it is a deterrent. If that is not what you believe or want us to believe (which I think is sometimes the case) then it is great that you straighten us out by posting exactly what you want us to think you believe.

What a joke. "What I want you to THINK I believe." Like I said, if I post it, you find something wrong with it. Now you're accusing me of being disingenuous.

I have said all along that I am against capital punishment, in this and other threads. That doesn't mean that studies about the potential deterrent effect of capital punishment should be suppressed. I thought the new study was an interesting read, regardless of my position on the matter. I don't believe in only reading or posting studies that only support my position.

Next time you decide to go accusing me of something just because I'm me, or because you ASSUME you know what I believe, why don't you read what I've said about it first. http://www.lapbandtalk.com/479781-post50.html

BJean · June 13, 2007

You know what gadget, the whole reason I bothered to post anything at all after you posted your link to that article was because I thought you were following the lead of whoever wrote the article by giving the impression that there was shocking news that there are credible studies that prove that capital punishment is a deterrent to crime. I thought the article was clearly just a sensational one to get people stirred up and not because it really presented a definite finding from a credible study. The news was not as sensational as the headline and a few paragraphs would lead one to believe. However if one pulls just those sensational paragraphs and omits the qualifiers, it surely does seem sensational. That's what I had a problem with and I thought I went pretty far in explaining it. You are the one who started the whole personal affront about what I posted. And if you can't understand why I posted what I did, I certainly can't understand why you reacted the way you did.

The bottom line on this whole silly bit is that our feelings from other threads where we disagreed have undoubtedly colored our posts on this issue. That's pretty understandable really, since we are generally so diametrically opposed in every other arena.

I believe I'm ready for some nicely warmed Brie, preferably with simple little Water crackers.

gadgetlady · June 13, 2007

I guess that's an apology?

BJean · June 13, 2007

Oops no, that wasn't meant to have been taken as an apology. If I had meant to apologize for something, I would have said, gadget I am very sorry for.... um, whatever it was that I felt sorry for.

The cheese remark was there because I think this thread is doing a slow death. Now that I've said that, I'm pretty sure it will be revived if it is like other aging threads that have been on the verge of death only to be brought back with another gale force of hot air.

gadgetlady · June 13, 2007

Nope, didn't think so. Accusing someone of something they haven't done, or of a position they do not hold, and then slamming them for that position (that they don't hold) repeatedly doesn't deserve an apology. No, ma'am. Didn't really expect any apologies from you.

BJean · June 14, 2007

Man, you are one super-sarcastic person. Maybe that's why your posts are so hard to understand sometimes.

Is that why you asked if what I posted was an apology? So you could take a very little snotty sarcastic jab at me?

Nice. Real nice.

gadgetlady · June 14, 2007

If you don't believe you owe someone an apology for accusing them of something they haven't done and then slamming them for what you presume to be their position, that's your business. I had hoped an apology would be forthcoming, but to no avail. And I guess that's consistent with the attack position you always take.

BJean · June 15, 2007

You must not read all my posts or you would know that I do not always take an "attack postition" in my posts. I often disagree with what you post and I imagine that is why you assume I take an "attack position" all the time.

You may not like to be opposed by me and that's understandable, but I seldom make my posts personal because I don't feel that makes any sense. I try very hard not to be sarcastic also because I do not think that makes any sense.

We had an misunderstanding and I was doing my darned level best to explain why I thought it had happened. I didn't think that an apology was necessary. The misunderstanding had to do with things I posted as well as things you posted. At least that is my take on the issue.

On another thread, you posted that you do not respect people who are for a woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion. How can you expect people to respect you when you disrespect others just because their beliefs and opinions are different from yours? One can be decent to people they disagree with and they can respect them as well, even though they do not agree with or respect their beliefs.

gadgetlady · June 15, 2007

On another thread, you posted that you do not respect people who are for a woman's right to choose when it comes to abortion. How can you expect people to respect you when you disrespect others just because their beliefs and opinions are different from yours? One can be decent to people they disagree with and they can respect them as well, even though they do not agree with or respect their beliefs.

I never said I don't respect people who believe in abortion. I said I don't respect the pro-abortion position. I believe I was quite clear in saying I respected the person and their right to have that opinion.

As to being decent to people with whom one disagrees, in my opinion offering an apology when one is wrong is something that reflects that decency and respect.

BJean · June 15, 2007

Reading your posts is like doing the Tango. Around and around and around we go! Where we stop? Who knows? I guess it will stop when I don't read your posts and respond to them. There's no reasoning with you. Bless your heart honey, you wear me out.

gadgetlady · June 15, 2007

Reading your posts is like doing the Tango. Around and around and around we go! Where we stop? Who knows? I guess it will stop when I don't read your posts and respond to them. There's no reasoning with you. Bless your heart honey, you wear me out.

and yet