This "distinction" is simply an attempt to evade the evidence by filing it in a different drawer, like the Clintontista distinction between "serious charges if proven true" and "not rising to the level of impeachment". Anything that is established beyond reasonable denial is filed in the lower category, even if it had previously been in the higher (e.g. Eophippus --> Equus was once denied outright and then redefined as "mircoevolution"; BillyJeff's BJs and perjurous coverups thereof were once denied outright and then redefined as "not rising to the level of impeachment".)
First, let me say that micro and macro evolution are indeed two different things. The former being defined as slight genetic change over a few generations in a population. The latter being defined as gradual changes from generation to generation over millions of years where past species evolve into new ones. This model of long term change is usually referred to as phyletic gradualism.
Now, if you are arguing that some evolution opponents have attempted to recategorize macro changes as micro in order to bolster their case, I would consider that charge to be entirely different that the charge than the distinction between macro and micro evolution is fabricated.
Incidently, beginning in the early 1970's, the macro-evolution model was challenged by Stephen J. Gould, Niles Eldredge, and other leading paleontologists . They asserted that there is sufficient fossil evidence now to show that some species remained essentially the same for millions of years and then underwent short periods of very rapid change. Gould suggests that a more accurate model in such species lines would be punctuated equilibrium. This is one of the new theories I had mentioned in a prior post.