On 15 Apr 2004 07:30:04 -0700, Jonathan Smith
I've neither argued misinformation as reality nor pushed an opposing party line, despite your ever more shrill protests to the contrary.
To the extent many of the comments on the site you referenced are statements of apprehension and concern (common in the face of new legislation), they cannot be factually inaccurate, which necessarily renders your statement false.
You may be confused in that disagreeing with views which don't match your own does not render those opposing views "factually incorrect."
You haven't asked any questions that I haven't answered directly and without the need of lies, damned lies, or statistics. You've neither asked anything particularly hard nor stated anything truly profound.
Much of what you've said, however, has been in misrepresentations, misstatement, personal value judgment represented as enlightenment, and plain error.
Nurses For Bush 1139You argue that the government can do it better but can't come up with a single example or evidence in support. The "apprehension" is based on incorrect information. That is...
You further have a nasty tendency to try to put words in others' mouths and later criticize them on the basis of those statements.
There's little call to believe your redundant buttertion that you read the MMA and reasonable evidence to say that if you did read the bare statute, then you appear to have misunderstood it. You've misstated it often enough to suspect this is so.