Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: BigGuy22

The “consensus” was already brought up in the OP. Again, I already pointed out that the MDEC is trying to argue QUANTITY over quality. There’s no point in regurgitating anything about concensus unless one thinks it reinforces correctness. The part that is hard to understand is the lack of honesty.


66 posted on 05/07/2012 2:47:10 PM PDT by edge919
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies ]


To: edge919
"Again, I already pointed out that the MDEC is trying to argue QUANTITY over quality. There’s no point in regurgitating anything about concensus unless one thinks it reinforces correctness."
__

Nope, now you're moving the goal posts.

I am not the MDEC and I do not speak for them. The MDEC may well be taking a position on correctness; I am not.

What I have said is that the conclusions of all the judges who have ruled on this matter shows that there is widespread agreement among the judicial community regarding how WKA is to be interpreted, and that agreement is by definition the current state of the law.

I am not -- I repeat, NOT -- saying that that interpretation is in any sense correct. I am simply saying what I am saying, that there is widespread agreement, even if some consider it to be widespread agreement on something incorrect.
72 posted on 05/07/2012 3:22:27 PM PDT by BigGuy22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson