I agree, or approve, or that I don't think you have a point he's overlooking. What I'm willing to accept is a rationale that doesn't entail overt dishonesty, stupidity, etc. If Will wants to be a sociolinguistic idealist, I don't particularly feel like arguing with him about what it is he doesn't see. I think he does a fairly poor job of synthesis, however, and though he's still in progress on that front, it implies to me that he's less invested in crafting a narrative that subsumes the polarities than in controversy-mongering. But that's just an impression I'd prefer he prove mistaken.