What I was calling daft was your inane response that I was somehow suggesting Perot won the election. Who was being childish there?
You said, "This country will elect a third party candidate if they are allowed into the debates - we saw as much with Perot in '92."
How can that be interpreted, if it does not mean that Perot won? In fact, he was allowed in but came nowhere close to winning.
As for childishness, I'm not referring things you say that I disagree with; I'm talking about your apparent unwillingness to express that disagreement without using personal insults. So, if I misread your statement about Perot, that is not being childish. Neither are you being childish by making a statement which implies something you didn't intend. What is being childish is calling me daft.
