Tom Quackenbush wrote:

With regards to the "apples and oranges" aspect of the argument,
I'd guess that anyone still reading the thread sees the problem. I've
got my doubts as to how many folks are still reading the thread,
though.

That is the key point, Tom. You're right. I've agreed with that from
the beginning. The problem is, as I said, the only time anyone falls
back to pointing out and arguing apples and oranges is when the
argument is lost beyond that point. The idiot formerly known as ed
only fell back to arguing the apples to oranges aspect because he was
proven blatantly wrong on the "crime" part.

It's no different from that other idiot earlier trying to argue the
definition of "permit" when he was proven wrong about the states
requiring permits.

ral