<mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net> wrote in message
news:caqpgb$j8k$2@news.Stanford.EDU...
> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
> > in article capi7q$jvj$3@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net
at
> > mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/16/04 10:33 PM:
>
> >> Uh, no, my sentence gives the correct impression that if I am asked for
> >> "what (I) think tax cuts should be proportionate to", I would be giving
> >> an opinion. There is, in fact, an implication, that there may be more
> >> than one way to define this.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but you're wrong again.
>
> > Your previous comments are ambiguous and you have made absolutely no
attempt
> > to reduce that ambiguity.
>
> My comments were clear; you are attempting to get a value judgement from
> me. Failing that, you fabricate your own, in order to refute it.
>
> Granted, an argument with you is an easily winnable one, but not that
> interesting.
>
> Mike

I don't know why you insist on skirting what is a fairly straightforward
question from both KWW and Ernest. The vast majority of your posts in this
thread have been little more than arrogant deflections and name calling and
have contained practically zero substance.

The question before you is a simple one. You made repeated statements about
how Reagan's tax cuts disproportionately benefited the wealthy. When asked
what such tax cuts are supposed to be proportional too, you suddenly start
claiming that people are trying to corner you into giving an opinion that
you apparently are not willing to give. You have already given us a value
judgment by making your initial claims. People are just asking you a fairly
obvious follow-up clarification of your statement. You aren't winning any
arguments here, just running away from them. One can only surmise that you
are repeating an oft-trumpeted political line without having put any thought
into whether it is actually true or not. Why don't you pick one of the
following four choices:

1. Retract your initial statements;

2. Support your initial statements by defining what the tax cuts should have
been proportional to;

3. Admit that you don't really have any well thought out basis for your
initial statements; or

4. Just tell us you don't want to play any more, take your marbles and go
home

And, just to be clear, any further name calling, arrogantly claiming to have
won the argument or otherwise trying to squirrel away from providing an
actual answer will be considered the same as choosing response number 3.

Jeff