No because "no, unfortunately" means no siblings
and never had *stomping foot*
and never had *stomping foot*
augifina, read the question and tell me which box I am to check.
One of the yes boxes of course. >.>
Ok, well lets say a person has one little brother who is totally awesome (despite being a filthy Joe) but his other little brother unfortunately died suddenly without warning because of a stupid choice he made one night. So this man in our scenario has one sibling which is awesome, but unfortunately nothing he can do will ever get that sibling back? Is having a sibling and losing them forever and all time, not as bad or "unfortunate" as never having one to begin with? If this man were me, I'd say it would be worse, cause you know exactly what that person would be like and so one knows what they're missing out on... everyday, till the day they themselves die. So is that awesome that this man still has one sibling he cares the world about; or unfortunate because he had another sibling but will never see them again?
And therein lies the conundrum of your limited voting options.
And therein lies the conundrum of your limited voting options.
It has nothing to do with the question because
even if he is dead you do have brother and you
do have another alive brother!
even if he is dead you do have brother and you
do have another alive brother!
Which is why when your poll popped up a couple of days ago, i immediately voted "yes, their awesome". Just felt like poking you with a stick. 
NOT funny.
(eyeroll) Jeez, lighten up Auggie.
View all replies