Gov. Rick Perry: INDICTED FELON

[God Emperor Baldur]

A Mythic Angel

I'm just hoping they convict him so that we can get him out of office for good and forever. He's made my home state a laughing stock.

It was a laughing stock long before that.

[azulmagia]

David2074

There is also a big difference between politely pointing out Perry is not yet a felon and being a 'right wing piss and moaner'.
TBH I'm surprised you got such a stick up your butt over having it pointed out. I just figured you'd change it and move on.

I am not here to argue semantics. I don't consider the title broken enough to warrant fixing. Your argument - if it had any validity - is that someone, merely by reading the title, would falsely come to believe that Perry had in fact be already convicted. I have seen no substantiation whatsoever for this merely theoretical objection, and I must counter by saying that anyone smart enough to "know" that a felon is ipso facto a convicted person ought also be smart enough to (a) deduce that Perry is not yet convicted and (b) deduce that people who don't know that felon = convicted will not automatically assume he's already been convicted.

Quote:

I'm honestly not stressing over the thread title.

Considering that you've made multiple posts over it and not over any substantive issue related to the case, of course you're stressing over it, you're not fooling anyone on that count.

Quote:

But I'm rather surprised how immature and nasty your responses have been.
If it was me I'd want to know I'd made a mistake and would have just changed it and said thanks. End of story. Instead you treat it like some sort of personal pissing match and start name calling. I don't claim to know you but I'm not impressed with how you handled it. It gives me the impression that "Does not handle criticism well" might be somewhere in the comments of your report cards or employee reviews.

I can handle criticism fairly well, but irrelevant tangents are another story, much less insinuations of deliberate dishonesty, so you and Joe are on the ignore list now.

[Mufid]

azulmagia

David2074

There is also a big difference between politely pointing out Perry is not yet a felon and being a 'right wing piss and moaner'.
TBH I'm surprised you got such a stick up your butt over having it pointed out. I just figured you'd change it and move on.

I am not here to argue semantics. I don't consider the title broken enough to warrant fixing. Your argument - if it had any validity - is that someone, merely by reading the title, would falsely come to believe that Perry had in fact be already convicted. I have seen no substantiation whatsoever for this merely theoretical objection, and I must counter by saying that anyone smart enough to "know" that a felon is ipso facto a convicted person ought also be smart enough to (a) deduce that Perry is not yet convicted and (b) deduce that people who don't know that felon = convicted will not automatically assume he's already been convicted.

Quote:

I'm honestly not stressing over the thread title.

Considering that you've made multiple posts over it and not over any substantive issue related to the case, of course you're stressing over it, you're not fooling anyone on that count.

Quote:

But I'm rather surprised how immature and nasty your responses have been.
If it was me I'd want to know I'd made a mistake and would have just changed it and said thanks. End of story. Instead you treat it like some sort of personal pissing match and start name calling. I don't claim to know you but I'm not impressed with how you handled it. It gives me the impression that "Does not handle criticism well" might be somewhere in the comments of your report cards or employee reviews.

I can handle criticism fairly well, but irrelevant tangents are another story, much less insinuations of deliberate dishonesty, so you and Joe are on the ignore list now.

Quoting me and then placing me on ignore so I have to use a mule to read the quote was a d**k move.
But to respond to your fallacious comments:
1. I really only pointed out the error in the thread title once. The other posts on that topic were simply responding to your rude comments about it. My original intent was to make you aware fo it and move on.
2. I actually did make posts in this thread that were about the topic and had nothing to do with the thread title.
3. I never once called you deliberately dishonest. I said your responses are immature and nasty and I stand by that.