You say that when you say that you suppose something, it is meant to be a question. In the same breath, you call it a claim, which I must accept or deny. All this for a point that is meaningless anyway.JohnDubYa said:The statement was intended to be a question. So what is your answer? If you are denying my claim, say so.
I see. You are being completely irrelevant on purpose. You are using what you consider that some people do, however hypocritical you consider it, as justification for doing the same thing. You suppose that I must do it as well. Now, you are asking me if I do it. Sure.No, I am saying that there is nothing wrong with calling a politican by his first name in a political forum, and I offered examples to support my claim. And those that object to my calling the speaker by his first name, and yet call our president by his first name, are hypocrites. Are they not? Do you fall in that category?
I see. You consider yourself a hypocrite, and you are trying to lump me in your boat. Let me see if I can find a way to extricate myself, at least in my mind, such that you remain the hypocrite that you claim yourself to be, yet I am not. Much of the world refers to Saddam Hussein as Saddam, and not as Hussein, when using a single name to refer to him. Although no means universal, it is a common custom. I am sorry that you are not aware of this fact, and that you used your mistaken understanding in this respect to add to your justification of your hypocrisy.Oh, the hypocrisy exists. Since when did you become on a first name basis with Saddam Hussein? Did you write the following?
Extricate yourself from that one, Mr. First-Name-Basis.
Hussein is not Saddam's family name. It's actually his father's given name. Given these 2 names to choose from, Saddam is usually considered the more relevant, because at least it is his name.