[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Bryan

that thread was closed, and I felt that this was worthy of discussion. If you don't like it, then don't post, nobody is holding a gun to your head.
To use the term in this case is irresponsible.

That thread is still open, you just responded in it about the CDOs. So your comment is inappropriate. Not to mention that I asked you politely in a PM to leave my post in the original thread where this all should be.

You're really splitting hairs and your last comment is a near personal attack. However, you remind me of a couple of softball teams that were in a league I umpired in. They could not complete a game because they couldn't agree on whether or not the tall grass outside of the manicured field represented "bushes" which defined certain ground rules. The whole intent of the rule was to stop play if the ball rolled into this area, bushes or tall grass. This is plain ridiculous.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Hopeful

That thread is still open, you just responded in it about the CDOs. So your comment is inappropriate.

I guess I got my threads confused.

Not to mention that I asked you politely in a PM to leave my post in the original thread where this all should be.

Different subject, different thread. (Sometimes I like to keep threads on topic)

You're really splitting hairs and your last comment is a near personal attack. However, you remind me of a couple of softball teams that were in a league I umpired in. They could not complete a game because they couldn't agree on whether or not the tall grass outside of the manicured field represented "bushes" which defined certain ground rules. The whole intent of the rule was to stop play if the ball rolled into this area, bushes or tall grass. This is plain ridiculous.

I don't think it is splitting hairs given the current political climate. And yes, I think it is irresponsible to use the term "bail-out" for that same reason. Again, if you think this thread is ridiculous, then you can ignore it; it won't hurt my feelings.

[Hopeful]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I guess I got my threads confused.Different subject, different thread. (Sometimes I like to keep threads on topic)

I don't think it is splitting hairs given the current political climate. And yes, I think it is irresponsible to use the term "bail-out" for that same reason. Again, if you think this thread is ridiculous, then you can ignore it; it won't hurt my feelings.

If you got confused, then what better reason is there to keep it where it was?

Until today, I didn't know that I can't use the term in the way that I would normally use it (and the author of the article for that matter). In the meantime, what gets lost is the real gist of the actions being contemplated which is what really matters. I don't think the author, the banks, Treasury or the FDIC care how it is being characterized by wordsmiths because they have bigger issues to deal with.

[adamwagg]

I think the thread has run its course. A quick note though - its fair for people to take a post from a different thread to start a new thread if they want to start a discussion on a different topic - its in fact good - we have enough threads that go way off topic in this forum. Also please keep things polite.