Clarification.
As I stated in an earlier post, Bill will admit he's wrong on one point, if he thinks he can get me on another point.
Which was why I was feeding him the lure about a re-trial.
Once I told him that was a lure, he switched back to his standard abuse of semantics to show that he was "right" when he said that B&J's ethics support a cop killer (through monetary donations).
To rephrase, Bill can only admit he's "wrong" if he can show that I am "more wrong".
If he cannot show that I am "more wrong", then he will abuse semantics to show that he is "right".
Again, Bill admitted he was wrong in the other thread (when he thought he could catch me on something else) but denies he is wrong in this thread (where he cannot catch me on something else).
Similar to the tax thing. Sales taxes are regressive but sales taxes are progressive (accourding to Bill). Do you care to address that, yet?
