Light rail versions
Rangerdude and myself have some smaller disagreements about the light rail section (beyond its length), but the main disagreement is over the last one or two paragraphs. For the purposes of making it easier for other editors to help us come to a consensus, I will reproduce the two versions here. In the interest of avoiding edit warring, I have stopped reverting Rangerdude's additions on this section, so what stands now is his preference. I'll reproduce it here:
This is my preferred version:
· Katefan0 (scribble) 15:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
Refactored discussion
The way you guys are discussing this is too confusing for outsiders to follow when you each raise five points and then respond to them en masse. I am going to refactor it. I hope you will continue in this format, which will make it easier for others to jump in.
- Grouse, thanks for your work -- I completely agree. · Katefan0 (scribble) 14:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
1: Editorial board's endorsement
Rangerdude: You remove the fact that the editorial board not only advocated but repeatedly ENDORSED a yes vote in favor of the referendum. It could also be noted that they editorialized against TTM over their own criminal complaint and editorialized against Rosenthal when he dismissed it. Why water this fact down?"
Katefan0: "Further, in keeping with the indications of the memorandum, the Chronicle editorial page became" is wordy and inaccurate. This makes it appear as if the Editorial Board suddenly became an advocate of light rail, which is wrong; they had been for many years already. My version reflects that by stating "continued to be."
Rangerdude: I do not see how a one-line descriptive sentence is wordy, nor inaccurate. Nowhere does the sentence claim that the editorial board suddenly started to advocate rail. What is indicated is that they implemented at least part of the memorandum's proposals.
Grouse: Rangerdude, do you think that the Editorial Board's stance changed after this memo? That is what the version quoted says to me. I suggest the following language: "At the time, the Chronicle's critics noted that the paper's Editorial Board continued being a vocal advocate of the expansion of Houston's light rail, endorsing it several times, and charged that the paper became a partisan participant in the debate over light rail expansion."
2: The word "criminal"
Rangerdude: You are consciously removing the word "criminal" in reference to the complaint even though the governing Texas law plainly and irrefutably classifies it as a criminal complaint, repeatedly and consistently using the word "criminal." Why do you insist on watering this fact down?
Katefan0: Nowhere have I removed information stating that a violation of the statute TTM was investigated under was a criminal statute. I object to using "criminal" as a descriptive adjective for "complaint" because the complaint was neither criminal nor civil in nature. It simply was a complaint, a request for an investigation. Using criminal as an adjective to describe the complaint gives a reader the impression that the Chronicle had a choice in the matter, as with lawsuits where you can either bring suit in a civil or a criminal court. It was a complaint filed about the violation of a statute that happened to carry a criminal penalty (a misdemeanor, by the way, which should also be included in the article -- mine referenced the minimal fine it carried).
Rangerdude: You are simply wrong about the word criminal's use. Per the Texas statute, the complaint *is* criminal in nature. Your personal dislike for the word is no basis to ignore what the statute says. The word "criminal" is used repeatedly to describe the exact type of complaint the Chronicle filed throughout Chapter 273 of the Election Code. And yes, the Chronicle did indeed have a choice in the matter. They chose to file the complaint and they chose to do it through the criminal system! Possible alternative options available to them included a complaint through the ethics commission or through a civil lawsuit, as one of the pro-rail lawyers did (although the prospects of either were equally dim as Texas law simply did not apply the way the Chronicle wanted it to apply). But they chose to go the DA route and used a statutory provision that is self-titled as a _criminal_ procedure to file the complaint. As you will also note, the current version includes "a misdemeanor offense punishable by a $500 fine" thus your request to add this is moot.
Grouse: On the face of it, a complaint filed with the DA would be a criminal complaint. And one for a misdemeanor offense would definitely be one.
- Grouse, I'll defer to your opinion on this -- though I still think using criminal as a descriptor for complaint implies some choice in the "type" of complaint filed on that statute. · Katefan0 (scribble) 14:48, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
- Johntex: I would prefer to leave out the word "criminal" from the description. It seems like it is accurate but also redundant. As an analogy, a speeding ticket is a criminal offense (as opposed to civil) but we don't normally say "criminal speeding ticket". Johntex 16:54, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- I don't see how it's redundant if you're excluding the word "criminal" entirely from the paragraph. If it read "During the campaign the Houston Chronicle's lawyers filed a criminal complaint under chapter 273 of the Texas Elections Code, pertaining to criminal complaints, with Harris County, Texas criminal District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal accusing Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main organization opposing the bond, of criminal fundraising improprieties. The criminal complaint alleged that TTM had violated Texas criminal statutes requiring PAC fundraising disclosures, which is a criminal misdemeanor offense punishable by a $500 fine." ...then it would be redundant. But the current version does not. It uses the word "criminal" a grand total of once, which is actually fewer times than the Chronicle itself used the word "criminal" to describe their own complaint. Rangerdude 17:10, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Johntex: Adjectives can be redundant to the noun they modify even if they are used only once. Please consider these examples: "organic protein chemistry", "degreed professor", "criminal speeding ticket". Protein chemistry is organic by definition. All professors have degrees. All speeding tickets are criminal offenses. Johntex 17:26, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Your examples are simple 2 and 3 word phrases. This is a complex multi-sentence paragraph. Furthermore, some of your examples are not even accurate. Many professors lack PhD's or even degrees in a given field that they teach, but teach there anyway due to a significant accomplishment or experience that they possess (e.g. a former congressman teaching political science despite not having a degree in it, a bestselling author teaching a literature class despite not having a degree in it). Nor are all speeding tickets criminal offenses. Some states assess lesser speeding fines as civil penalties - a practice that is increasingly commong with electronic speed camera tickets. As to this case, "criminal complaint" serves to distinguish from a "civil complaint" (which could've also been filed had the Chronicle wanted) since not all complaints are criminal. It also fulfills the function of specificity as to exactly what the Chronicle was doing. Also keep in mind that the language I favor here is nothing less than what the Chronicle itself repeatedly used to describe its own actions. Rangerdude 17:39, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
- Thank you for considering my examples.
- It seems for now you are granting my first example to be accurate (I will hold open the possibility you may want to argue it later). That would mean you agree that a circumstance could exist where the first use of an adjective is already redundant.
- Concerning point 2 - You are certainly correct that professors sometimes hold honorary degrees, or teach in fields outside of their degree. Still, I doubt there has ever been a professor who did not have a degree in some field. That would mean they are "degreed". If any professor exists without any degree at all, this circumstance would be vanishingly rare. Let's suppose for a moment it has happened at least once in the case of human experience. It would still be the case that the adjective is unecessary when referring to the usual case, I.e., a professor who does hold a degree. One would instead focus on using the opposite adjective "non-degreed" to refer to that rare case. Using the adjective "degreed" would not be "logically wrong", but it would be redundant. Good writing attempts to avoid redundancies, so it could be considered "wrong" from a standpoint of good writing/editing.
- Concerning point 3 - I am not aware of any state that considers their speeding tickets to be civil rather than criminal. However, I won't waste your time to debate it. I will assume you are correct and you may modify my example to "criminal DUI charge" or "criminal murder charge". Do you know of any state where either of these are ever anything other than criminal?
- My point still stands; there are cases where the first use of an adjective is already redundant. Johntex 20:32, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
I don't deny that circumstances could exist where
Confidential Questionnaire - Houston Lawyer Referral Service, Inc.
Please fill in the confidential questionnaire below to obtain a lawyer with experience in the specific area of law in which you are interested.
HVLP - Houston Volunteer Lawyers Program
Houston Lawyer Referral Service For-fee ($) referrals to specialists 713-237-9429. Aid to Victims of Domestic Abuse (AVDA) Counseling & legal representation
Resource & Referral Guide
University of Houston Legal Aid Clinic 713-743-2094 . Guardianship/Probate, cont. Lone Star Legal Aid 713-652-0077 . Houston Lawyer Referral 713-237-9429
Houston Lawyer Referral Service - Houston Lawyer Referral Services ...
Houston Lawyer Referral Service at Houston Lawyer Referral Services, Inc info from Houston Press. Find info about Houston events, concerts, shows, admission and ticket prices
The Houston Lawyer Referral Service - Houston, Tx
If you need a Houston Lawyer, the Houston Lawyer Referral Service can refer you to a qualified law firm in Houston, Harris County, Sugar Land, Fort Bend, and Montgomery counties.
THL March April 2008
Houston Lawyer Referral Service 50 Years of Service to the Community and the Legal Profession. By Janet Diaz. W hen Houston Bar Association President Lewis W. Cutrer ...
Attorney, Lawyer, Law Firm Houston - Houston Lawyer Referral Service ...
The Houston Lawyer Referral Service would like to help you learn about hiring an attorney or law firm in Houston and provide you with legal answers in Texas.
The Houston Lawyer Referral Service - Houston, Tx
Houston Bar Association Asian American Bar Association Association of Women Attorneys Hispanic Bar Association Houston Lawyers Association Houston Trial Lawyers Association
HOUSTON LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE
HOUSTON LAWYER REFERRAL SERVICE, INC. Approved Audit Policy . I. PURPOSE The Houston Lawyer Referral Service, Inc. (HLRS) has adopted an Audit Policy and ...
Client Survey - The Houston Lawyer Referral Service
The Houston Lawyer Referral Service would like to gather feedback using our client survey form so we can better serve our clients.