"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
link.net...
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.

Richard, are you still claiming that we have no drug crimes if the Fed
doesn't report them? Or are you saying now that you agree with what I said
from the beginning, and you figure that no one notices what you just tried
to do?

YOU were the one who said that the crime figures are "whatever the
government said they are," stupidly assuming that the National Crime Index
is a report of all crimes.

Now you seem to have recognized your mistake and you're trying to weasel out
of it, eh, dickhead?

What a phony you are.

Ed Huntress