"Tom Quackenbush" wrote in message
...
Richard Lewis wrote:

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.
snipped
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.

With all due respect, I think you misunderstood me. Ed was pointing
out that apples and oranges are different, only because you didn't
seem to grasp the difference. Perfectly logical argument, IMHO. Also a
futile argument, in this case.

FWIW, I blame Ed more than you for pursuing it this far; I've come
to expect better of _him_. That's entirely my problem, though - I
don't expect either one of you will have to cry yourself to sleep due
to my opinion. g

Hey, somebody has to keep the trolls from running rampant. g How would I
know that Richard is some kind of infected boil?

We'll stop feeding him now and he'll quiet down.

Ed Huntress