so the fact that someone is semantically wrong on the internet is more important than the story it portrays?
Guess we have to agree to disagree there.
Guess we have to agree to disagree there.
First off, this has nothing to do with semantics. The meaning of the words or the title is not the issue here, it's the inclusion of information that isn't related.
Second, the fact that I disagree with the title has nothing to do with my opinion of the story.
If you see "The cancer kill her yesterday" as a title, you won't say anything about the verb tense because that would imply you love cancer?
Well then, "guess we have to agree to disagree there".
Why do you keep accusing him of dismissing the importance of the story? If he takes a moment to let you know that he was outraged, then may he comment on the fact that he thinks "it's poor practice to include the race, sexual orientation, or religion" if it's not directly relevant to the story?