Sheryl_Carver

Sheryl_Carver

74p

376 comments posted · 0 followers · following 0

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Housekeeping: Prop8Tri... · 0 replies · +2 points

Agreeing with "cluttered" & the "yellow space" comments.

While the stuff on the sides is interesting, helpful, etc, the heart of P8TT are the articles/posts & comments from the members of our community. The new layout essentially cuts that part in half (space-wise) & makes it less readable, IMHO.

Perhaps it would work to have some of the things that do not change, or at least not often (Blogroll, NOM Tour Tracker, etc), be cascading menu items? That would take up a lot less real estate & also reduce the clutter factor.

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Civil unions bill pass... · 1 reply · +6 points

It's a sad reality that many elected officials risk losing their jobs if they vote to uphold civil rights for ALL people. The targeted minorities change, but the ignorance & bigotry of too many voters never seems to. The article noted that she is NOT up for reelection. Who knows if that influenced her vote. What does matter is that she voted "yes."

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - North Carolina's anti-... · 0 replies · +7 points

You are merely rehashing, over & over again. That is not "discussing it."

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - North Carolina's anti-... · 3 replies · +4 points

Jamie,

Please, please, just give it a rest.

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Action: Help get out t... · 3 replies · +2 points

I know what you mean, johan. Most of us would like people to do the "right" things for the "right" reasons. We'd like people to refrain from violence because it's the right thing to do, not just because they'll (hopefully) go to prison if they injure or kill someone.

However, many years ago I began to realize that if something is important, sometimes the best you can do is to figure out what will motivate others to do it, regardless if they do it for the "right" reasons. Yes, some folks take this to mean the ends justify the means. That's not what I mean at all. More like the analogy about violence above - if it takes the threat of prison to make someone think twice about hurting me, that's OK with me.

Same with defeating this amendment - it seems important NOT to have it become part of NC's Constitution. If it takes using the "it'll hurt straight folks, too" argument, well, that's what it takes. Unlike NOM et al, we aren't lying or using racism or other nasty tactics, we are just doing all we can ethically & morally to achieve an important goal.

(Haven't had a lot of sleep lately, so hope this all makes some sort of sense.)

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Action: Help get out t... · 6 replies · +4 points

I don't know johan, but that's NOT how his post sounded to me at all. I took it to mean that even if we win, don't be fooled into thinking that NC as a whole has changed its mind about supporting marriage equality. Sort of like, just because someone takes you to the prom, doesn't mean they did it because they love or even like you. They may just want to piss off the person who just dumped them.

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - This week's high profi... · 0 replies · +5 points

That's exactly what I've been thinking, Rich.

All those in government, including the president, should think more carefully before they speak. As should we all ...

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Part 3 – For the fir... · 0 replies · +2 points

From the San Francisco Chronicle this morning, in another DOMA case here in San Francisco:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/...

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Part 3 – For the fir... · 0 replies · +1 points

If I understood Kathleen's earlier comments correctly, the audio recording is the ONLY record available, so no transcript other than what might be transcribed from what exists of the audio recording.

14 years ago @ Equality on Trial - Part 1 - For the first... · 1 reply · +4 points

This is unbelievable in this day & age, & for a court deciding cases of this importance!

Does the fact that there is now no way to prove who said what have any impact on whatever ruling the panel of judges renders?