in article capi7q$jvj$3@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/16/04 10:33 PM:

> Ernest Schaal <eschaal@max.hi-ho.ne.jp> wrote:
>> in article camtk1$i38$1@news.Stanford.EDU, mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net at
>> mtfester@netMAPSONscape.net wrote on 6/15/04 10:29 PM:
> 
>>> Kevin Wayne Williams <kww.nihongo@verizon.nut> wrote:
> 
>> [SNIP]
> 
>>>> Please define what you think tax cuts should be proportionate to.
>>> 
>>> That wouldn't be a "definition", so much as an "opinion", now, would
>>> it?
> 
>> Your sentence gives the false impression that there is only one thing that
>> "proportionate to" can be defined as.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Mike

Your previous comments are ambiguous and you have made absolutely no attempt
to reduce that ambiguity. For all we know, you were talking about taxes
being proportionate to age, popularity, or zip code.

It is not wrong to point out that lack of adequate basis of your arguments
and the faulty logic.