[Sox may be the only one who understands where I'm coming from on this point - our fathers were, when their eyes were good - some of the best shots in the US and we were raised with certain expectations]

expectation 1: do not fire unless you are sure of your shot. expectation 2: do not piss off people who can shoot very well and are related to you.

does that sound about right, sparky?

that said? I'm very glad this person missed.

That worries me a lot too. I tend to get into my fair share of political arguments, because I, uh have a lot of opinions, and in my experience what tends to happen at the end of the argument is that the other person says to me: "Everyone is entitled to their own opinion."

Ugh. There's a whole thread going on my FB page (a friend's, rather, not my own) that started out with this gem:

OK people - if you think you are tolerant and broad minded and then post comments like "idiot" (saw this as a comment on an friend's post) or marginalize a persons beliefs, political or not, you are the one who is ignorant and intollerant. You may not like what that person is saying but if you can't respect their right to say it, your the one with the problem.

and a stream of comments like:

I couldn't agree more! Tolerance is tolerance of all opinions, even those you don't agree with!

So far I'm staying away, mostly because I know if I start to type, something like "My the-one-with-the-problem what?" or "But what's your stance on ignorance of the spelling of intolerance?" will come out. And that's before I even get to the substance of the post. It will not end well.

who is Ehrlich in The Wire?!

Google tells me he played a state trooper/guard in an ep in season 4. [link]

Sox, re your gmail question - can I ask sister G?

Ugh, brenda. I hate the notion that all opinions are to be respected.

I suppose writing "It's not because I don't agree with you..it's because you are being a stupid ass and pulling conclusions out of your(probably copious) butt." would not earn me points on the tolerant-meter.

I think I could work on expressing disagreement without name-calling. Civility shouldn't equal agreement.

I think I could work on expressing disagreement without name-calling. Civility shouldn't equal agreement.

Yeah.

Also, asking "What the fuck is wrong with you?" isn't name-calling, is it?

Also, asking "What the fuck is wrong with you?" isn't name-calling, is it?

Depends where you put the stress in the sentence.

Also, asking "What the fuck is wrong with you?" isn't name-calling, is it?

Depends where you put the stress in the sentence.

It's posts like this that make me love us.

I've found that the way to combat all that crazy stuff is to repeat it back as a question, detailing precisely what they are saying, "So you're telling me that the president is spending as much on a trip to a country where you can live on $10 a day easy as the GDP of a mid-size country? And this is something you really believe?" and if they say yes, there is no point in arguing. If we can't agree on facts, well I don't know where to go from there.