Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
The implication of his post containing the quotation was clear. The fact that the person quoted tried to claim his point was something other than what it was simply was unpersuasive.
|
Now I'm fully convinced you're a litigator. It would take a very smart litigator to remain this adamant about something so stupid. Don't feel bad, though. All of us are paid to sound smart in defense of the stupid position, half of the time. It's the nature of the law biz.
Here's a hint, though. It would be a lot easier for you simply to disagree with Mill's actual point. You're free to do so. Constructing an entirely different point, and then disagreeing with it, is an extra step for which, presumably, you're not being paid.
