You describe yourself as cerebral so you must know automatically why your comments raise hackles.
If you haven’t noticed, review your own posts on our threads and find consistently that despite saccharine politeness, your words irritate. You come across as an adversary and do not sound at all like you would like to save Lauren from being murdered with the cooperation of the State.
Did I get that right? Can you perhaps enlighten us veterans on just how you are pro-life?
I am glad your cerebral-ness allows you the moxie to admit you were wrong once or perhaps even more. I was wrong once, too. ;-)
Tell us more about yourself and your interest.
Oh yes, if you don’t think there is evidence enough you haven’t been reading enough. It is all there at your keyboard, to research our own threads. We won’t do it for you.
I thought I was wrong once, but I was mistaken.
>>>On the contrary, living in my head so much often blinds me to how people react to me.
"If you haven’t noticed, review your own posts on our threads and find consistently that despite saccharine politeness, your words irritate. You come across as an adversary and do not sound at all like you would like to save Lauren from being murdered with the cooperation of the State."
>>>I did not realize that posts of simple civility were considered to be "saccharine", though I have noticed the hostility with which I have often been answered. This is why I asked what exactly about my posts has been offensive. What is it that makes me "come across as an adversary"? All I am is a curious person seeking to understand a point of view I find fascinating.
"Did I get that right? Can you perhaps enlighten us veterans on just how you are pro-life?"
>>>No, indeed, you did not "get that right". Just what is it of which you are "veterans"? Are you retired military? If so, let me thank you for your service to our country.
>>>I have claimed to be neither pro-life nor not pro-life. Again, I am an interested observer trying to learn more about a certain way of thinking--and of writing--which interests me. I am even thinking of writing a short piece on the subject.
"I am glad your cerebral-ness allows you the moxie to admit you were wrong once or perhaps even more. I was wrong once, too. ;-)"
>>>You seem to be using a different definition of "cerebral" than I intended to convey. I did not mean to imply "smarter than"; I merely meant one who thinks a lot, ruminates, lives in their head. So it was not being cerebral which prompted my statement about being wrong before, it was just a weak attempt at humour.
"Tell us more about yourself and your interest."
>>>Oh, I don't think you really want to know about me. Your posts make it clear enough that you are only interested in an argument. My interests do not include giving you one.
"Oh yes, if you don’t think there is evidence enough you haven’t been reading enough. It is all there at your keyboard, to research our own threads. We won’t do it for you."
>>>I wouldn't dream of asking you to do research for me. On occasion I might ask someone to back up an assertion with a source, but that's hardly the same thing, is it? I have read an enormous number of what you call "Terri threads". Simply because I disagree with you as to what constitutes "enough evidence" doesn't mean I haven't done any reading! :^D