> I don't know regex

You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it.

Your comments are incoherent and disingenuous. Saying that trickle down economics is "an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics" is very much saying that they refer to the same thing ... and it's the thing they refer to that TFA argues only helps the rich. You say that "the policies of supply-side economics, however, are much more defensible" but you offer no defense, and no rebuttal to TFA.

> For example, the Cartesian circle does not refer to any of the many mathematical advancements Rene Descartes discovered. Instead, it's the name of a common criticism for an argument he made.

This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing.

I have a thing about people who act in bad faith, or argue so ineptly that it looks like it ... I won't be responding further.

> You know enough about it to misidentify that obvious string replacement command as an example of it.

I figured the syntax was like an either-or thing, but I wasn't sure.

> Saying that trickle down economics is 'an entirely pejorative term created by detractors of supply-side economics' is very much saying that they refer to the same thing...

I don't think it is. What I'm _not_ trying to say is that trickle-down economics is a nickname for supply-side economics. More, trickle-down economics is a strawman. Not the same thing or a different name, but an inaccurate version--a caricature which doesn't even resemble policy. Also I'm not sure what "TFA" stands for.

> This is the most inept attempt at an analogy that I can recall seeing.

It was kind of rough.

Regardless of the incompetence of my arguments though, I promise I am not being intentionally dense. I really do try to act in good faith here on HN, and I'd appreciate it if I could hear more of your perspective and continue this civilly.