I certainly don't want to be in a fight with you, especially not when the general thread was so civil (relatively).


This is down to my personality, and if you have problems with that, I can't do anything to help you. I don't reply to everything, especially not when I feel I can't make a positive point. Joel replied to both, and it was not my intention to get into a discussion on the ethics of abortion, as you have mentioned.

I said that if you had a problem with a post, that is what you should reply to. I used Cannoli as the example, and was not claiming that he was the only issue in the thread. I apologize if it sounded that way or I didn't represent it correctly. I felt that you were scolding me and my thread, because that was what you responded to - I then responded directly to that response. I am sorry to have offended you if I was wrong about that, BUT I still think that some of the burden is on you - it simply doesn't make sense to sound as though you're taking the objectively higher moral ground while also refusing to reference who you're talking about (be it posters here or someone you know that works at KFC). Do you think I'm completely off base there? I don't, but from the discussion below, it seems I DID misconstrue some of what you were saying, and I appreciate the clarification.


I was still "pounding that drum" because I also read when you said this: "this doesn't stop me from wanting to deliver a few appropriate slaps where I believe they were due. You may disagree, and I'd prefer not to call them out by name, but I consider them appropriate. I also think people need the occasional reminder that, much like sneering at paparazzi while reading the tabloids, just because something pops up in the news doesn't mean it really entitles them -morally - to render judgments, legally of course they may, as may I upon them. You may or may not agree that this is such a case, and I do not claim it is an extreme example, but I do believe some in this thread also exceeded their moral authority to condone or condemn."

I was attempting to point out that if you have issues, it makes much more sense to address them than to make a general statement to me. Do you not see how I could have been confused about your intentions and whether I was one who deserved any moral slapping? Aside - I don't agree that people have less right to say something, moral authority deserved or otherwise. That may have to remain a point on which we agree to disagree.


Thank you for clarifying that. It was NOT clear to me that you weren't talking about posters and/or me specifically, and it may be that I'm not as sharp as joel or ray.



Thank you for the summary. I don't disagree with that at all, except that I do think everyone is allowed an opinion and to talk about it.



I think I explained how that happened above (when I referenced your quote).


We can have a real discussion here, I think. I don't think this is just about a celebrity cause. Not this time. There are so many REAL women who rely on PP, and SGK is in a unique position to recognize that. What I found most eye-opening about the entire issue wasn't anything to do with the politics or the popularity of the conversation - it was that 1) there were people (even fairly high up) who threatened to quit SGK if it made such a change, and 2) there were branches of SGK that outright stated that they would maintain the link with PP anyway, given that there were rural, poor, Native American and etc women who were almost completely unreachable for breast cancer screenings w/o PP. That made an impression on me, though I can't speak for others. In the interest of honesty, I do think there was a massive amount of politics to it, both in the original decision and the latter changes.


If it helps, I don't ever see myself as a clean or unblemished figure, because I am very well aware that I don't understand everything, and can't always be in someone else's shoes. Obviously, I can't always avoid acting as though I do, however. Especially when I have mistaken someone's intent.