Jim,
I'd just drop this, move on, and remember the experience. Did you get
flight following or go IFR to PRC, if so maybe I talked to you NE of
PRC. Anyway, is PRC a contract tower, I don't know, just wondering.
As far as the controller in question, a few things are possible: she
didnt say anything else about it, right? So she probably forgot about
it and moved on to other things, busy or not. If she was truly troubled
by it, but not enough to have you call in, she probably questioned
herself if she was clear enough to you in what she wanted of you.
If it was that big a deal, it'll probably be something she changes
about the clarity of her clearances, and she'll watch out for readbacks
that show the slightest amount of doubt in what's expected of the
pilot.

Personally I read alot in the tone of readbacks, even if theyre correct.
Sure, I could always say later that "hey, he read it back right, it's on
his back", but I dont like answering those kinds of questions, nor do
I like tapes pulled. Resolve it at the time if possible and move on and
do my job.

If you fly enough you know controllers and pilots both screw up. You
also know, as someone else rightly pointed out, that a controller can
be manipulative, unfairly so to make you look bad and them good. I
see it fairly often with certain personality types where I work. It's
almost as if they're setting someone up for failure for their own
kicks. I'm not implying that was the case here, might've been a power
play on her part, she mightve been genuinely surprised or alarmed
to not see you where she expected. But if there was no traffic, why
make a big deal of it. We dont have the tape, we dont know how
she put it. It could've been just her way of talking that seemed rude
to you, but wasn't her intent. If she said nothing else about it, she
didnt consider it a big deal, and neither should you.

At the risk of this post being longwinded, I'll give you a recent
example. It alone will probably flare up this topic again with
people and their opinions and references. For some reason,
this airline we regularly work started changing the way they
operate and comply with clearances out of one of our airports.
In short, they get a VFR climb on an IFR clearance and think
they can deviate 120 degrees from their IFR route, but the
clearance they request, and receive, is VFR climb on course,
which in itself is a questionable clearance in itself IMO, but
that's another story. Anyway, imagine Dept Pt A, first fix
is Pt B about 25nm away is a 200 heading, Pt C is about 100
nm away on a 050 heading. These aircraft would take off
and fly a 130 heading to join the course between B and C, or
just turn direct C. This started hapenning on a daily basis,
several times a day, different crews. Controllers were noticing,
and not particularly caring for it, but not saying anything about
it except amongst themselves. Finally, as tactfully as I could,
I asked what was up. I guess my only real beef is that they ask
for VFR climbs, the airlines I'm talking about here, but they
really only want it to climb on course (no departure procedure)
and dont want the responsibility of separating themselves, which
a VFR climb requires. But I didnt bring it up with these guys (2
different crews), I just said if all of us had the "no harm, no foul"
rule, we'd let it slide if there wasnt traffic. But the ONE time
there is traffic and this turn puts them right in its face, the crew
will have to answer as to how they perceived "as filed" meant
a deviation like this. They apologized and saw the point I was
trying to make, which is basically covering their own butts. I
told them it wouldnt go any further than that, but just ask for the
shortcut, how often is that particular one turned down? Hardly
ever. Luckily, this sector is kind of off by itself and out of the
hearing range of my supervisor. Once they hear something like
this, the "no harm, no foul" rule goes right out the window and
it's nothing but trouble for everyone involved. Phone calls, etc.

Point I'm trying to make (slowly, gradually, sorry) is that I'm
sure theres been times where I may have snipped at a pilot that
messed up, it's hapenned to me as a pilot (sometimes my mistake,
sometimes not). I cant speak for all controllers, but most I know
are over it pretty quickly, whether you stay on freq for just a
few more seconds or an hour. If I notice myself doing that, and
I get the impression the pilot feels as if he's on the verge of having
to call in or get violated, I try to make it clear that is not the case.
I only get in trouble by my conversational tone on freq, which the
supervisors hate, and I hear about regularly. Now you see why
I dont want tapes pulled? Picture hangar flying, that kind of
chit-chat, but on freq. Makes for a more enjoyable and relaxed
experience for all, and that's what I'm shooting for.

One last thought, in reference to your "it is potentially
dangerous when controllers and pilots define things differently"
statement, more controllers should be pilots. That wont change
the definitions, but less of an "us against them" mentality that
is out there.

As usual, these are just my observations, experience, and opinions.
You guys that argue just for arguments sake, or flame for kicks, can
pound it sideways, as my main man Phil Hendrie says.
To the rest, happy flying,
Chris