[VRWCmember]

They occasionally have some influence-- As far as any real, legal, authority in terms of law or any kind of binding actions. Nope.

OK, so this is getting interesting now.

It is interesting to note the portion of the response you chose to omit:

They occasionally have some influence, depending on the quality of the reports they put out, and the willingness of people in positions of real authority to heed what they say. Let’s say they are a provider of advice, you can either take that advice, or not take it, it’s up to you.

As far as any real, legal, authority in terms of law or any kind of binding actions. Nope.

I wonder if I'm the only one who has noticed this pattern. You seem to have a knack for missing or ignoring the most germane portion of the answers to your questions in following up on the discussion.

[VRWCmember]

I should have also pinged you to my reply.

[Jokelahoma]

You're gathering the pattern, really. From what I've seen as an outside observer, it seems your debate partner here is attempting to lead you to the answer they want you to give, to try to set up an "a-ha" or "gotcha". You're giving factual answers, which obviously doesn't play from the same playbook, and that requires the debate to go on longer and longer.

It's not an uncommon tactic, unfortunately. Some are just better at it than others. Congratulations to you for smelling out the trap before it was even laid.

[mnehring]

It is way worse.. something isn't right with this one.. I responded to him earlier and his reply was to quote part of my post and try to twist the words.. the problem is, the part he quoted was his own question that I had quoted before adding my response..(post 161)

As Hank Hill would say.. Boy ain't right.