Stop Changing the Subject

A huge pet peeve of mine is people who think that they can win an argument by changing the subject ever so slightly.

Case in point: on a bike forum I'm on, I pointed out the Bush Administration's poor environmental record and the weakening of environmental protection standards by the Bush EPA.

Some guy replied to me that this was a total misconception, and that Al Gore has three houses without any sort of environmentally friendly sources of energy or other features, while Bush's ranch down in Texas uses solar and geothermal. He responded with "Score one for Bush."

NEVER in our discussion did he actually address my point - he just pointed out that ONE house owned by Bush is sort of green. And I responded with a link that listed all the Bush Administration environmental woes.

The attitude that you can rebut criticisms about "your side" by pointing out the faults of the "other side" is absolutely laughable to me. You should rebut by pointing out the faults in the original argument if you can, otherwise you need to shut up.

The Hate-Roll

Some people have a blogroll, I have a hate-roll. Consider it my list of pet peeves, I guess. An ongoing project of mine, it's therapeutic.

Sports:

1. People who refer to MLS as "The MLS." The league's name is Major League Soccer. We don't call baseball "The MLB," do we? Pay attention to what you're saying.
   
   
2. Members of the sports media who can't see through their personal likes and dislikes well enough to deliver an unbiased report. I'm talking to you guys, Mark May and Frank Deford.
   

Language:

1. The omitting of the words "to be" from sentences. Example: "My broken watch needs fixed."
   
   
2. Mis-spellings on publicly-viewable items. Example: A high school message board that says "Congradulations Football Team!" or something like that.