07-30-2011, 04:50 PM
|
#92
|
Senior Member
How Do You Identify?: Understated butch.
Preferred Pronoun?: I
Relationship Status: Party of One
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Maine
Posts: 1,654
Thanks: 1,324
Thanked 3,112 Times in 1,103 Posts
Rep Power: 21474850
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CherryFemme
First and foremost, I would like to apologize to the member who pointed out that I “de-railed” this thread. I did not mean to upset or disrespect you or anyone else. I know I already apologized to you personally, but as you mentioned, the “thread starter” did not begin this thread to debate democracy. I am apologizing to you both. Consider my hand slapped.
Before I leave, I want to thank the people who joined me down the garden path to “de-railment”. Your insights and comments were fantastic. I took a law class last semester and I miss deconstructing the US Constitution and discussing the religious affiliations of its creators. It was a great class.
My intent was not to de-rail a thread but rather to establish a baseline (God is not in the Constitution) and see how Reception theory applies or does not apply. I did not think anyone would take my bait, and you can imagine how sad I am that I am not able to play the devil’s advocate and hash out this idea… This might seem random but the core of my question was really:
What happens in the gap between policy and implementation when the policy is the US Constitution?
BUT, I am sure that by even writing that sentence, I am offending someone, somewhere. I really do not do well in the threads since this is the second time I have been told that I have distressed someone by de-railing a thread unintentionally. Again, sorry for the de-railment.
I give up.
~CF
|
I know we already talked about it, but I just want to say here publicly that as far as I'm concerned, that was fine. I'm not even sure it was a total derail.
__________________
Really? That's not funny to you?
|
|
|