Yes, I misquoted you! But to insist that there is a glaringly different meaning between to the two statements is a stretch.
Like I said, I have watched lawyers do what you are doing with the English language and it disgusts me. But you sing to a choir here who would never speak out against you. It's the playing field that I signed up for. So go ahead do what you do with impunity. I however see through it.
You have got to be kidding. Lawyers "do not misrepresent facts?" WHAT? THAT is what they specialize in.
The most obvious case of this is the OJ trial. If Cochran did not misrepresent facts, what did he do and how did he win at trial?
By saying something is "not minor," you have gone on record as saying absolutely nothing regarding whether the issue is minor, moderate or major. Yet your implication to the casual reader is that it is moderate or major. Yet you fail to state that on record therefore giving you an out as to actually saying that. Like I said, to imply without actually saying anything (like you just did) is the artwork of a lawyer.There is a spectrum between minor and major. They are not binary states.
Saying that something is not something is verbal, evasive gymnastics. It's like saying "we are second to none" or "we are number one." Those statements come with implications while legally saying nothing of the sort.

