I guess it's because I've never seen her anywhere but in Natter, popping in to post on political arguments (and I agree that it's going against the grain, but I'm with smonster in that I don't feel she engaged). I'll defer to people who feel they know her better, I just wanted to make sure it was known that erika wasn't the only one of that opinion.

Shari's not a troll. She's a time-challenged poster with very inflammatory views. But I don't see anything to imply she doesn't believe them. I disagree quite wholeheartedly, but that doesn't a troll make.

Shari, I don't think you're a troll, you've been around a long time and used to post on non-political stuff. I do think you are frequently trying to be inflammatory and have a tendency to set up straw men to knock down in the most argumentative terms, which to me indicates that you aren't really interested in engaging or having a disucssion at all.

I also have a really hard time forming a coherent argurment, and I think being able to have discussions here makes me more able to says something other than "How can you be so mean/dumb/rascist?!?!?!".

I also like the opportunity to talk to people who I disagree with, since in real life I just avoid talking about politics most of the time because I just get very emotional, and no one is going to be convinced to want gay marriage by me crying about it!

My arguments aren't always intelligent or coherent either, and lord knows I'd hate to have that be the standard by which my value as a member of this community was judged.

Kate, have I ever told you I adore you? I do.

Yes, Kate, but if you and I disagreed about something and I gave you links and cites and facts, I'm pretty sure that you would read and consider instead of dismissing.

Sure, but if I were the lone voice of disagreement and you and twenty other people were giving me links and cites and facts, I think I'd be a lot less likely to really engage. Look, I'm not saying I think Shari had a great argument; her responses did seem sort of dismissive to me. But I think it's a huge leap from there to "troll," that's all.

I am uncomfortable labeling anyone a troll for bringing up unpopular sides to a convo. I am also uncomfortable with discussing someone when they are not present in a convo to speak for themselves.

I skim and skip and quite frequently dark-grey, so I am not a judge of how often people post, or what other conversations have happened in the past.

Although I disagree with your position, Shari, and do think that some positions have some large logical holes in them, I have no problem with the conversation that was held on the last day.

I enjoy Buffistas for the discourse; please let us all -- I love you all! -- continue to be gracious, welcoming and thoughtful.

I have to agree with Kate.

Kate, have I ever told you I adore you? I do.

Aw, shucks, Dana! You just made me grin.

OK, I could accept that I might be wrong. Absolutely normal kind people wait for a hot death-penalty case to drop by and say hello. Okay. Whatever. Y'all are too nice. But that's probably why you like me too. And I should be careful...you could divest from me right now.

I am uncomfortable labeling anyone a troll for bringing up unpopular sides to a convo.

You know that's not what it's for right? That it's because the last time I remember her in Natter it was also during a political discussion that nearly got nasty.

Again, I'm not in all threads all the time, so I'm willing to admit I may have it wrong, but I think saying it's for having an unpopular opinion is forgetting some history.

Now, I promise I'm done.