I don't think his intent was to get into another argument over the choice of a descriptive noun with someone with the time and interest to get into the semantic back and forth over the choice of descriptive nouns but apparently not to provide any, zero, nada shred of physical written evidence that back up his main argument. Other than hints, clues, etc.
Just for fun- I'll ask again - any mention of a second transaction, an amount, a party, date, anything post the failure of the SISP?
Of course not. You could, but you "just don't want to".
Anyway, I think the poster's intent was to point out that an argument lost but not admitted to is just bad faith. Now act as if you haven't seen this, or peck away at my grammar while avoiding the truth.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
