Bangswitch
Well-Known Member
That's called "moving the goalpost." You initially claim was the statement was misleading. (That's after you implied the statement was a promise.) You're now claiming the statement is fine and it's the reader's reliance on the statement that's misleading. I'm not exactly sure what "relying on that quote is misleading" means but I do see that it's not the original claim.
That's a big negative ghost rider. The statement is misleading, because the intended user of that statement would not have read it until it was contextually useless. Weather intentional or not it is. It was phrased carefully not to make himself a liar. By the way you can keep your doctor its just cost more. Semantically that wasn't a lie either.
Now if the BR official said so long as I hold this position I have no intent on trying to collect and he was being truthful, and he is still holding his office the user could rely on that statement. But to make a statement with no validity because contextually "currently" expires instantaneously.
I guarantee you wouldn't put up with that bull$hit weasel language from a suspect nor would you trust it. If a suspect who is a known drug dealer say, "hey man let me up I currently have no intention of running from you" what would you do?