>The only takeaway... Well, that is, strictly speaking, a false statement. I agree the discussion has been civil; but consider that the support to Google's pos

>The only takeaway... Well, that is, strictly speaking, a false statement. I agree the discussion has been civil; but consider that the support to Google's position requires adding phrases to their statement which fundamentally change the statements meaning. I'm not sure what it's called, something like the opposite of a strawman attack. It is indeed simple to defend a statement when you give yourself permission to rewrite it in a post hoc fashion. It's an argument I find uncompelling, no matter how civilly it's presented.