I don't think we're in danger of having a fight, I commented, you misinterpreted me, I recognized that my comments could easily have been misinterpreted and that such a misinterpretation would merit the response if true. Me repeating that I think you should have given me the benefit of the doubt achieves nothing.




Didn't have problem with you not getting on them, I had a problem with you getting on me about not getting on them when you hadn't and Joel already had and I said I agreed with him.



I don't normally explain what I consider accepted knowledge, I'm pretty confident the super-majority of people who read 'pink bucket' understood the reference, I detailed it in the last post only to make sure you knew that I was using as a standard reference and not something from this thread. Everyone in this thread essentially claims by posting greater than average knowledge of SGK, except in the form of asking questions, and I doubt anyone would have felt attacked by me via my comments if they'd simply posted to ask for more information. As for DA and Canolli, I'm not going to legitimize their remarks by dragging either of us over the thresher. I routinely post critical non-specific posts into longer threads when I see multiple offenses, that is why I replied to your OP, as is the norm, plus the titular references, a news update that I think you'll agree was relevant and should have been sent as a direct reply to your OP. So off base? A little to be sure but I don't think you were unreasonable





... and I did



Note 'also'




When one is adding in a clearly relevant update on the article, replying to the OP is appropriate, it is also, as I said, pretty normal to reply to multiple unconnected comments with a general reply to the thread... to the thread, not really you at all. I mean I do it fairly regularly and so do others. I'd stated I didn't want in the thread, a single response was appropriate. Everything in it was appropriate to a non-specific singular reply to the OP. No slap was addressed at you, beyond the generalized slap at humanity for the way we let this stuff happen to good causes. I can certainly see how you felt that way, I don't think it was outrageous of you to feel that way, but I don't think on that score I hold much burden. Clarification requires lengthier posts, I've been trying to trim them back of late and that was especially desirable when the thread is one I don't want to get sucked into. More's the pity since it happened anyway.

As for moral authority, we will have to agree to disagree. I am certainly open to counter-evidence or logic that politicizing causes often taints them or that in general discussions of their policy in any sort of political light contributes to that. Once one is truly irredeemable political, as many are, then they're fair game. Whether or not SGK is may be debatable, but it doesn't stop me from using it as vivid example of the cost of all of this.




They're just used to me, Danny also apparently.




They're allowed, I simply discourage it. Same reason I discourage rumor mongering or bickering. If it does not help, and it may harm, then I avoid speaking of it unless such is my intent. Fundamentally, you are all welcome to discuss this subject you consider important, but if that is okay, it surely must be equally okay for me to express my view that the conversation is itself fundamentally damaging the cause that I assume everyone here does consider important, and that in general this is a serious and widespread concern. Spit in a bucket, to be sure, but a lot of people are spitting right now on SGK or the vile babykillers or misogynists out to co-opt or destroy them. Look it all the wonders it did for the environmental movement, any number of holidays or festivals, every single red cross operation I can remember, and God alone knows how much else including various God-affiliated charities. Even civil talk, which I can not condemn, serves to this end, as people use that as an excuse to weigh in with their political views on the matter, and others reply in kind.




I'm quite happy with your explanations, it is water under the bridge form my perspective and I assume and hope yours as well.




I can't reply to those without being a hypocrite. Those who threatened to resign over it, in my opinion, have split loyalties and perhaps should consider their fitness for the duties they have volunteered for. Their motives, wisdom, and ethics are not a matter for me to speculate on, they're private citizens I've never met.

I can reply about PP in one respect though. They have often pushed the line about being the only option, to mollify those who object to abortion or the smaller group which objects to contraceptives. These claims have typically been false and misleading, easily disproved, but never widely reported. I wonder how many people think PP actually provides mammograms? Probably a lot after their president said they did. Lots of people do breast screenings, and many will be discontinue these because of the 2011 Cochrane review showing that this sort of screening has an absolute risk reduction of 0.05%, meaning that 2,000 such screenings must be performed to save a life. A worthy thing, but if it costs, say, $100 for each or 200,000 to save a life, these funds and efforts might be better directed at a route which saves 1 for every $100,000. Actually Cochrane indicated screenings were quite probably doing net harm, due to frequency, but that's another story, several really. Interestingly a search on Cochrane and Komen will provide as the first too hits the link to their own webpage compiling reference links on breast screening repeat citations of Cochrane, understandably so, and though now that this is so politicized by everyone jumping the gun, I doubt any could ever tell or care if just maybe, as I would assume, the breast cancer charity might have decided funds were better spent elsewhere after receiving well-respected research indicating that was so this last year. Certainly there are no articles mentioning it, but I prefer to do my own research where possible these days.

A quick quote from Brinker, "Wherever possible, we want to grant to the provider that is actually providing the lifesaving mammogram,". This, on the face at least, seems quite reasonable to me in light of that study. It is quite probable though that Cecile Richards, Pres of PP, was still under the impression her group provided mammograms when she denounced Brinker. Nobody seems concerned with the Cochrane review in the news, even though I remembered it and BC's not huge on my list, and

Like I said though, it is rather hard to avoid politics on this matter. I am no fan of PP, but I still believe that fundamentally it was for SGK to decide where to spend its donations. Perhaps this was all discussed already, I did not read every post and I've read so much on this in so many places of late that who said what gets lost on me. And I've already stepped close to hypocrisy just by saying as much as I did.




Like I said, water under the bridge.