Jivin J’s Life Links 8-24-11
by JivinJ, host of the blog, JivinJehoshaphat
- Rick Perry has signed the Susan B. Anthony List’s presidential pro-life pledge:
“I not only pledge to protect unborn life, but have a record of doing so in Texas,” Perry said in a statement. “I have signed legislation requiring parental consent for a minor to obtain an abortion, and have long advocated adoption as an alternative to abortion in order to protect unborn children.”
- Rapper Lil’ Wayne’s upcoming music video release includes a scene where a woman leaves an abortion clinic:
The Chris Robinson-directed clip is filled with drama and social commentary, telling the story of a beautiful young woman who stumbles into every imaginable pitfall.
The video opens in an abortion clinic, where a woman lies in a gown on the operating table. Suddenly she changes her mind and flies off the table and through the clinic’s hall, choosing to keep her child.
- In an update, the 3 individuals in Scotland who killed a young woman because she aborted one of their children have been sentenced for their crime:
The 15-year-old had sworn revenge on [21-year-old Nattalie Muir], who had become pregnant by him and then had a termination before going back with a former boyfriend.
The teenager and 34-year-old George Stewart yesterday appeared at the High Court in Glasgow after admitting the culpable homicide of Miss Muir.
Emma Merrilees, 20 – who struck the fatal blow during the brutal assault – joined them in the dock after pleading guilty to a murder charge….
The court earlier heard how Miss Muir had been in a relationship with the schoolboy over a 4-month period until last October following a split from her long-term boyfriend Thomas Thyne.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Perry is very pro-life….in addition to being a gorgeous hunk!!
It’s a pity he can’t sign a stay or reprieve of execution though, especially when there are doubts about the condemned person’s guilt. How many now, 232 is it?
Reality, Which specific cases did Perry refuse the reprieve when there was doubt about the condemned person’s guilt? Links or case names please.
Bill Clinton declares vegan victory
http://yourlife.usatoday.com/fitness-food/diet-nutrition/story/2011-08-23/Bill-Clinton-declares-vegan-victory/50111212/1#uslPageReturn
Slick Willy abstains from eating meat.
Well, at least the livestock is safe.
Now, if we can only get the philanderer to swear off what-a-sized women.
Hi Ken,
LOL…. Do you know if he is equally concerned about STDs? Since you brought up the subject of livestock,I always enjoyed Elizabeth Taylor’s earthiness. While at a celebrity party attended by Clinton, she told Clinton to quit staring at Sophia Loren’s cleavage. When he denied doing any such sordid thing Elizabeth replied: “Bull—-“.
Reality,
You’re so concerned about the needle in the haystack innocent on death row. I wish you were just as concerned about the million-and-a-half innocents a year who are the subject of this site.
Yeah, I’d also like to know where Rick Perry failed to meet Reality’s standard on that score.
At any rate, in the coming election Obama’s also in favor of the death penalty — so that’s not a differentiator.
Just a trolling factor for a mischievous provocateur on a pro-life blog.
Perry is currently the GOP’s frontrunner, but this doesn’t mean much at this point:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149180/Perry-Zooms-Front-Pack-2012-GOP-Nomination.aspx
I’m wary of this guy, but it does seem like he’s strong and decisive, unlike some of the other candidates, like Milt “Pillar of Jello” Romney.
However, I don’t call someone who signs death warrants so for many executions “pro-life” (this is just my opinion, I’m not trying to start a debate about the death penalty)!
the notion is that innocent life should be protected, guilty criminals, not. It might not be catholic doctrine, but it certainly is conservative protestant doctrine.
“It’s a pity he can’t sign a stay or reprieve of execution though, especially when there are doubts about the condemned person’s guilt. How many now, 232 is it?”
So goofy.
232 requests for a stay?
Uh, well, no.
What? one?
And that 30 days would have done, what?
After all the appeals etc, the parole board wasn’t going to review the stuff any more anyway.
A Texas governor can’t stop executions. He doesn’t have that power. That power is with the parole board.
Former Texas governor, Ann Richards, whom I liked, has the exact same record on executions that Perry has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Richards
truthseeker, just type “Rick Perry DNA executions” into your favourite search engine and have a little peruse. Not only is Perry pro death penalty, it would appear he’s an advocate of blocking challenges and appeals.
Hans, I simply can’t accept Perry as being ‘pro-life’ when he is such a fervent supporter of execution. The number of innocent people on death row may not be huge but when is it enough to be concerned about? And the number of state sponsored deaths is not ‘needle in a haystack’.
If obama is pro-death penalty rasqual then I do have a substantive disagreement with him.
No hippie, not 232 requests for a stay. 232 Executions that Perry could have stopped. I said ‘especially when there are doubts…’. Perhaps I should have said ‘especially in the cases where there are doubts…’.
My point is the same as that made by phillymiss. I don’t see how he can claim to be pro-life.
Reality,
Maybe the people on death row, whatever the number, deserve to be there.
I can’t understand your concern for convicted murderers and predators, but your advocacy for killing the most innocent among us.
BTW, I strongly advocate giving people every means and opportunity to prove their innocence, if in fact this proof exists. As for predators and murderers, they can fry.
Reality: It’s a bizarre trolling ruse to try to get people who generally believe in the Great Chain of Being to imagine that a person must be against capital punishment in order for their opposition to abortion to be relevant in considering their suitableness for running against an incumbent who’s wholly in favor of abortion rights as well as capital punishment.
Simply put, Perry’s ahead of Obama from the pro-life perspective. If life issues matter for presidential elections, that’s what counts. Unless you believe pro-lifers are idiots who’ll vote third party and split the vote merely because no perfect candidate emerges.
I’m pro-life and I have no problem with capital punishment. Forfeiture is the strongest pro-life rational for capital punishment there is. Most other rationals for capital punishment are illiberal and abusive, IMO.
Reality….no links??? Instead of backing up your assertion by providing links to records that back up your accusation that ’Perry refused the reprieves of 232 death row inmates whose guilt was in doubt’; you change over to saying that ’Perry is an advocate of blocking challenges and appeals’. And btw; I have seen how inept our governement and our judicial system can be and I agree that there are innocent people on death row. But you were wrong to lible Rick Perry by insinuating that he would intentionally work to execute innocent people. So either provide the records to back up what you say or quit posting slander.
What, can’t you type something into a search engine truthseeker?
truthseeker (glad you don’t call yourself truthspeaker!), I did not say “Perry refused the reprieves of 232 death row inmates whose guilt was in doubt”, I said “It’s a pity he can’t sign a stay or reprieve of execution though, especially when there are doubts about the condemned person’s guilt.” This did not imply that there were doubts about all 232. For you to infer such is your own version of ‘trolling’. The reference to “How many now, 232 is it?” was in relation to the overall number of executions and you know that.
And yes, he is an advocate of blocking appeals and reprieves as the simple search I suggested would have shown you. I could have listed dozens of links but since that clogs the posting of a comment I showed you where you could find them.
I didn’t ‘lible’ (sic) Perry, he’s the one who stacked the bench.
As you well know, my point was that someone who is so fervently pro death penalty hardly qualifies as pro-life.
rasqual, there are some pro-lifers who would vote for an anti-choice Pol Pot over a pro-choice Mandela.
‘Bizarre trolling ruse’? Hardly. I said absolutely zero about his suitableness (suitability?) for running in regard to this topic (there are plenty of other reasons of course), he’s just not pro-life in my view. That was all I said.
Reality: It’s not your interlocutor’s responsibility to establish your points. If it was me you expected to go Googlin’, I’d be tempted to just say “didn’t find a damn thing, liar.” ;-)
Reality, again no links or information about even one case where Perry didn’t “sign a stay or reprieve of execution though, especially when there are doubts about the condemned person’s guilt.” And again deflection to blocking of appeals etc. If you can’t back it up and you won’t take it back then it is lible.
Ah, two of the three wise monkeys. ‘no, no I can’t hear anything’ and ‘no, no I can’t see anything’.
opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2011/06/rick-perry-the-presidential-candidate-who-executed-an-innocent-man.html
deathpenaltyblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/04/would-rick-perry-and-john-brad.html
nationalmemo.com/article/perry-appointee-blocked-dna-evidence-shows-convicted-man-has-been-held-wrongly-25-years
articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-06-25/news/ct-met-perry-execution-20110625_1_texas-fire-investigators-cameron-todd-willingham-execution
onebluestocking.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/235th-execution/
(because of the number of links I’ve left out the http:// at the start of each one, hopefully you can manage to work things out)
Are you really going to tell me that Perry demonstrates a tendency to allow doubt to stop an execution? You simply cannot accept the fact that the man is a fervent supporter of execution and does not qualify as pro-life. No ‘lible’ or even libel truthseeker.
Just curious, Reality, but – do you have an issue with capital punishment?
Because of the number of links you have to be passive aggressive and go the extra mile to elide what cuts and pastes naturally as a whole — and something you know is clickable if you paste it thus?
Good grief.
“Passive aggressive? Why whatever are you talking about?” “because of the number of links I’ve left out the http://” — right, because people do that all the time as a courtesy.
LOL
Read my remarks further above again, Reality. It doesn’t matter for purposes of the coming election. He’s more pro-life than Obama — who’s willing to let millions of innocents not on death row die at the hands of abortionists.
That Perry is more pro-life than Obama is obvious, and a sufficient determinant of support for those for whom pro-life is a significant electoral concern.
There are other factors as important, though — something the rubes who elected Obama neglected to think about amid their swoons.
“Gee, I’ll vote for Obama because Reality sez Perry’s not pro-life!” Right.
I just love the way you spatter your little ad hominems and non sequiturs as a replacement for cogent responses and in an attempt to denigrate what others have said rasqual, always amusing.
As I had intimated earlier, I am aware that multiple links can hold up comments for quite some time. I thought you may appreciate receiving a more timely response than may occur under those circumstances. What number of links would you have deemed seemly and not hitting some giddying height which induces the ‘quelle horreur’ of ‘passive-aggressive’ action?
And, yet again, I said zero about Perry’s electability on this premise. I only asserted that he is not pro-life. Have you got that yet?
Mabe if you acknowledge that I am pro-life because I don’t agree with the death penalty then I could accede that Perry is pro-life for being against abortion.
I don’t have the word ‘gullible’ tattooed on my forehead Kel :-)
I don’t have the word ‘gullible’ tattooed on my forehead Kel :-)
It’s always awesome to ask a genuine question of someone and get a half-*ssed response like that. :-/
I asked because I didn’t know your position on capital punishment and you posted several links against Rick Perry on that topic. I didn’t know if you posted the links to try and turn pro-lifers who are anti-death penalty against Perry or because you’re really against capital punishment.
If you are against capital punishment, I have to say that surprises me.
Reality: It’s not the number of links, Reality. It’s that when asked for links, you go out of your way to make them unclickable when reminded that the onus is yours. That’s some petty stuff.
You’re not pro-life for disagreeing with the death penalty if you still favor abortion rights. Not in the least. Pro-life begins when life begins. To you, a murderer ought not be killed on death row — but it’d have been fine if his mother had killed him before birth.
Meanwhile, forfeiture is a coherent justification for at least some capital crimes, but not for merely being an unborn child.
Best of luck pretending to be pro-life, Reality.
I do apologise if I misconstrued your intent Kel. You may be aware that my experience here means that I am wary of what may be leading questions. I am against capital punishment.
What is it with you rasqual, you can’t accept a rational explanation? I did it so as to be timely, not difficult. Stop being so petty.
You’re not pro-life for disagreeing with abortion rights if you still favor the death penalty. Not in the least.
So if Perry was a stout supporter of euthanasia you would still consider him pro-life?
‘fofeiture is a coherent justification for at least some capital crimes’ – why? How? Who said so?
Best of luck getting Perry into the White House, rasqual – and just to be clear, I’m not saying that because he supports execution, there are plenty of other reasons.
Reality: You’re entirely illiterate on forfeiture, then? So your opposition to the death penalty is pre-critical, then.
“So if Perry was a stout supporter of euthanasia you would still consider him pro-life?”
Forfeiture doesn’t apply to euthanasia. Apples and oranges.
You really don’t understand this, do you?
I appreciate the good luck wishes, but voting Obama out won’t require much luck no matter who the Republican candidate is.
“What is it with you rasqual, you can’t accept a rational explanation? I did it so as to be timely, not difficult. Stop being so petty.”
What’s timely about pasting a link, then pausing to elide the portion that makes it handily clickable for interlocutors whose expectations that you provide links have clearly irritated you? Then repeating that for each of several. No, Reality, it’s stupidly passive aggressive. It’s weird.
“232 Executions that Perry could have stopped.”
He could not stop any. Just like Ann Richards could not and did not stop any.
Texas governors can only act on recommendations initiated by the parole board.
Every one of the links posted by Reality are to opinion pieces.
Obviously innocent life should be preserved, but the evidence was examined and the appeals were heard and there was due process. So, that is all there is.
So, you are unable to answer the question then. Quaint terminology doesn’t change the status or outcome of state execution. How do you justify it? What ‘coherent justification’ do you believe exists?
“voting Obama out won’t require much luck no matter who the Republican candidate is.” – luck doesn’t come into it. None of them have the ability to defeat obama.
“pausing to elide the portion that makes it handily clickable” – do you have an impairment of some sort which means you can only discern every second line or something?
From the start I explained that you would need to add ‘http://’ which I’m sure most
From the start I explained that you would need to add ‘http://’ which I’m sure most
normal people wouldn’t find difficult. And I have explained more than once that I did
normal people wouldn’t find difficult. And I have explained more than once that I did
so to facilitate a response which would be available for your perusal sooner rather
so to facilitate a response which would be available for your perusal sooner rather
than later.
than later.
There, does that make it easier for you? Or are you still going to cling to your puerile denial of rational explanation?
You elicit amusement and sometimes mild astonishment in me rasqual, not anger. Therefore the cause for any sort of passive-aggressive behavior is absent.
Reality, do you seriously believe Perry actually wanted so badly to have Willingham executed that he had three persons on the parole board replaced to stack the board against him? It looks like liberal mudslinging. If so then what was Perry’s motive?
The jurors (who delivered their guilty verdict in 77 minutes) and the investigators and the firefighters and the guys neighbors (a lot of people on the scene) still think he was guilty. It appears the perp practically admitted to arson when investigators brought up the notion. He told them that they would find loads of cologne in the carpet fibres cause the kids liked the smell of cologne so he poured it from the bathroom through the hallway over to where the kids were found. So the fact that a commision that was investigating the science used to determine arson into question was Willingham’s his sixth appeal. And the guy never even took the stand in his own defense. The perps attorney said, “God forbid that somebody was executed who was innocent. Nobody wants that to happen,” Martin said. “But for somebody so obviously guilty like Willingham – it’s a travesty to make it seem like it was something other than what it was.”
Like I said before; I am against the government killing anybody cause I know our system of justice is flawed. Guilty rich people can get off by using technicalities or expert witnesses who throw question on the evidence; and innocent poor people sometimes get railroaded. But this didn’t look like one of those cases. I know if my kids were in a burning house I wouldn’t get in my car unless I was going to drive it through a bedroom wall in the house; certainly not to move it into the street.
I found all this out with the top article on a google search of ‘todd willingham verdict’. Here is the article if you want to see more facts and opinions.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/26/cameron-todd-willingham-t_n_300940.html
truthseeker, I think Perry has a bit of a track record in this regard. DNA evidence, the mentally retarded, that sort of thing. I don’t think he specifically wanted Willingham executed on a personal level, he just pushes execution with a fervor which may in some cases preclude true justice.
I agree that there is much evidence pointing to Willingham’s guilt. But what evidence against his guilt was presented and what was excluded? I don’t give great credence to what ‘neighbors’ might say about an individual and it has been demonstrated that people often act ‘oddly’ in an emergent situation. You can’t state with surety what you might do, neither can I.
The bottom line is that if there was the slightest possible doubt then execution should not have taken place. I actually think it should never take place.
Reality, if you’re half as computer-challenged as I am, there’s no shame in it. I still haven’t been able to figure out cutting and pasting, even after Googling it a few times. I’ve learned I have to type in the whole address to get that nice linky red or blue color.
If you’re not as computer-challenged as I am, then yes, Rasqual is right in calling you inconsiderate. I for one was not going to plow through those addresses.
Not you too Hans! How many times do I need to explain that I was just preventing excessive delays in the conversation. I’m sorry I didn’t realise that some people couldn’t cut and paste.
I’m far from computer savvy, I even struggle to recall how to convert a Word page from portrait to landscape.
But I can copy and paste the given line into the address bar, type http:// at the start and hit enter.
rasqual is being disingenuous if he claims it would be too hard to do as I suggested, he’s shown his abilities in this regard.
In fact, you know what I just did? I copied just the ‘huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/26/cameron-todd-willingham-t_n_300940.html’ part of the link truthseeker provided into an address bar and hit enter. Guess what, it filled in the missing segment and took me to the appropriate page.
er, Hans, on August 24, 2011 at 1:42 am you posted a comment containing a link. I don’t think it would be too hard to work backwards in a similar way?
I will still however, concede that I may have been inconsiderate. But rasqual’s condemnations are not ‘coherently justifiable’.
I will follow these suggestions of which you speak. :)
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20101006-Ex-wife-says-Cameron-Todd-Willingham-6640.ece
It may be hard to believe that some parents care more about themselves than their own children. Oh wait, I’m on a prolife blog so we all know this already.
No, I’m not calling Reality inconsiderate. I’m calling her passive aggressive.
I couldn’t care less, myself, whether I have to cut and paste something. The issue isn’t inconvenience.
What I observed was that someone who was irritated with calls for links, provided several with a risible explanation for eliding the component that would have made them clickable in the forum (“to facilitate a response which would be available for your perusal sooner rather than later” — which clearly making the URLS unclickable does not do, so this is a particularly inept weasel-explain). The stated rational was to move such conversation along, yet she had to go out of her way to carefully select only part of the URL (or paste it all and elide it) for copying. Knowing this would be perceived as odd (because it is), she offered a weird explanation. The effect of her actions, regardless of her explanation, is to slow people down.
“But I can copy and paste the given line into the address bar, type http:// at the start and hit enter.”
So what do you get when you select the whole address bar, copy it all, then paste it somewhere? Do you get the http:// with the rest, or not? What browser do you use?
No harm done. To anyone. But the behavior itself is just classic passive aggressive B.S. “OK, they want links. Fine. Fine. Here. Here are your links.” With a weird tweak to make them less convenient while claiming the rationale is to make them more convenient. “I’m doing this for you guys.”
It’s weird, and I’m going to call it that.
“None of them have the ability to defeat obama.”
Good grief. You haven’t peed out the 2008 Kool-Aid yet? Or are you just acknowledging that all the fundraising Obama’s doing among jet-owning fat cats creates a heckuva juggernaut that would be tough for anyone to beat?
Reality: “truthseeker, I think Perry has a bit of a track record in this regard. DNA evidence, the mentally retarded, that sort of thing. I don’t think he specifically wanted Willingham executed on a personal level, he just pushes execution with a fervor which may in some cases preclude true justice.”
So how about some links? ;-)
Texas has been executing people, like, forever. How does Perry coming along change that? Why would he have to “push” in a state where, first, the governor doesn’t have much leverage to “push” one way or another in that respect, and, second, where no one needs to push — the death sentence is rolling along with a full tank of fuel.
You’re saying things, Reality, but they’re not sensible. You can disagree with anyone (including Perry) supporting the death penalty, that’s fine. But you’re going beyond that to almost conspiratorial regard for the extent to which you consider Perry responsible for capital punishment in Texas — a state that’s enthusiastically practiced it for what, over 150 years (absent the period of federal proscription)?
As we journey through life we discover or learn some things which are quite interesting and sometimes surprising. For myself, one of these is that some ‘old wives tales’ have some truth or accuracy in their origins. Another is that some generalisations contain clear examples of justification. In your case rasqual, it is that ‘a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing’.
If I had posted only two or three links you would have cried ‘inadequate!’. So I chose to post more than that. You and I both know that this may have caused an inordinate delay in the visibility of my comment if I hadn’t downgraded them from being ‘clickable’.
The fact that you persist in denying this reality and make nefarious claims says more about you than it does about me. If I could be bothered to make the effort I’m sure I could diagnose the cause of your need to behave in this way.
I read that elements of the GOP feel that obama is so beatable that they can nominate the most extreme conservative and win. I hope they decide to follow this path.
The governor has much ‘leverage’ that could be used to impact on the number of executions. Other states do have and have have had execution available but haven’t followed the same path as Texas.
“You’re saying things, Reality, but they’re not sensible.” – what you mean is that you either don’t agree with them or don’t fully understand them.
Reality: “If I had posted only two or three links you would have cried ‘inadequate!’”
You’re the resident fact-based community spokesperson for science. Care to cite any empirical evidence for this apparent inference?
“You and I both know that this may have caused an inordinate delay in the visibility of my comment if I hadn’t downgraded them from being ‘clickable’.”
What are you TALKING about? You just paste in the whole URL and post. You had to go out of your way to elide the scheme (as the http portion is called), or to avoid copying it. So insanely, to the contrary of your claim that you and I both know a thing — no. We both know the contrary. So your own part was slower, and you slowed down your readers in the process, and you claim you did so as a courtesy to make it faster.
Glad we have fact-based folk in these parts to help us out!
” ‘You’re saying things, Reality, but they’re not sensible.’ – what you mean is that you either don’t agree with them or don’t fully understand them.”
That’s an excellently constructed Boolean! I generally don’t agree with wrong or non sequitur things, so your remark is quite true.
I hope you are uttering gleeful titters as you sit locked into your singular pose in your seat rasqual. Rest assured, I too find mirth in your words, but without the need to restrict my mobility. I think that might say something.
“What are you TALKING about?” – ok, let’s be clear.
Are you insisting that posting more than a few links in a comment can cause considerable delay in the posting of that comment as it is held for moderation?
It is becoming more and more obvious where the insanity lies. Your need to repeatedly claim that I was trying to make the links untenable is disproven by the ease with which they can be rendered effective. That you choose to ignore this is an interesting psychological trait.
And then you confuse opinion with fact. Well done!
Confuse opinion with fact? Do I really need sarcasm tags?
As for moderation, I think it’s pretty quick. Let’s find out! Falsifiability is what science is all about, right? It’s 8:07 by my reckoning.
http://google.com/100001
http://google.com/100002
http://google.com/100003
http://google.com/100004
http://google.com/100005
http://google.com/100006
http://google.com/100007
http://google.com/100008
http://google.com/100009
http://google.com/100010
http://google.com/100011
http://google.com/100012
http://google.com/100013
http://google.com/100014
http://google.com/100015
http://google.com/100016
http://google.com/100017
http://google.com/100018
http://google.com/100019
http://google.com/100020
http://google.com/100021
http://google.com/100022
http://google.com/100023
http://google.com/100024
http://google.com/100025
http://google.com/100026
http://google.com/100027
http://google.com/100028
http://google.com/100029
http://google.com/100030
http://google.com/100031
http://google.com/100032
http://google.com/100033
http://google.com/100034
http://google.com/100035
http://google.com/100036
http://google.com/100037
http://google.com/100038
http://google.com/100039
http://google.com/100040
http://google.com/100041
http://google.com/100042
http://google.com/100043
“I hope you are uttering gleeful titters as you sit locked into your singular pose in your seat rasqual. Rest assured, I too find mirth in your words, but without the need to restrict my mobility. I think that might say something.”
You find mirth in my words without needing to restrict your mobility? If this is a contrast you’re drawing, why do you infer that motion reduces my capacity to enjoy mirth? Are you pleased that your sense of humor is independent of the direction and magnitude of your motion? ;-)
I actually have no idea what you mean. I’m more mobile than almost (almost) everyone I know. But I don’t think that “says something” — other than that I’m more mobile than I often wish.
Well, I’m going to mea culpa before what I mea culpa about is even apparent. ;-)
Seems moderation’s more slow than I thought. Hadn’t noticed the slowness on other occasions when I’ve included links myself. So I’ll have to give you credit for that concern, Reality. Definitely an empirically demonstrable — and apparently repeatable — issue here.
Now let’s see how long it takes for my 8:07 post to actually make it through…
edit: Whoa! Looks like right now, actually. I had F5’d just before typing this and the post hadn’t shown up, then when I posted this the post above just showed up. So that’s about an hour and a half for moderation.
Does that make my insanity temporary? Temporal, at least, I’d hope.
I’ve only noticed delays when there are more than a few links in a comment or the rare, random, no fathomable reason ‘held for moderation’ event. I don’t know if there are other instances. I can’t understand why you may have been moderated on this thread. It’s not like you’ve been offensive or sweary.
Your insanity fades, for now – but then again, where does insanity start or end for any of us? :-)
Lol- gang, the system here automatically holds comments including more than 2 links until they are approved by a mod. This is to help prevent spam.
Since moderators don’t exactly have this as their day job, sometimes it takes a while before one of us is able to get to it.
You could post multiple links in separate posts though if you like. I think that should let them through.
This is a WordPress site, I take it? If Jill’s using Akismet for spam control, the link count could be bumped and some other tweaks done to still provide good control.
Another way to prevent the need to moderate heavily linked posts is to allow previously approved commenters to skip moderation — which I believe overrides link count.
Just a thought.
Thanks Kel. I do appreciate the reality of the need to moderate for spam, amongst other things. And I don’t have an issue with the fact that moderated comments must await the good auspices of dedicated and busy folk.
If I feel the need to post multiple links that I wish to have ‘arrive’ promptly I might try your suggestion, as aesthetically unpleasant as it may ‘appear’.
Question for anybody who might oick this up. What percent of the 14% of ob-gyns who would commit abortion would only commit abortion to save the life of the mother. My guess is far less than half of those 14% would commit elective abortion. Could be as high as 99% would not commit elective abortion if you pull from the pool that includes primary care doctors and not just ob-gyns.
I would think only a very small percent of physicians who are in the healing practice would want to intentionally kill their patient’s offspring. Only freaks would commit abortion for a living. It is ‘born out’ (excuse the pun) by Hermit Gosnell, Alberto Hodari and George Tiller.
Aw, are Reality and Rasqual done? I just got the popcorn!
Sorry, above posts were supposed to be on the ob-gyn thread.
Rasqual: As for moderation, I think it’s pretty quick. Let’s find out! Falsifiability is what science is all about, right? It’s 8:07 by my reckoning.
“Moderation in all things,” (including moderation.)
This is a WordPress site, I take it? If Jill’s using Akismet for spam control, the link count could be bumped and some other tweaks done to still provide good control.
Another way to prevent the need to moderate heavily linked posts is to allow previously approved commenters to skip moderation — which I believe overrides link count.
Just a thought.
We’re aware of these functions and we appreciate the suggestions, but for now, we’ll leave things as they are. Thanks! :)