A typo is an error which results from the fact that you are typing. Consistently using the word council in place of counsel -- not even once getting it right, suggests to me that you have not even read enough about legal issues that you have seen the word in print. I understand that it can be difficult to parse the phrase "the council considered the counsel of the counselors before counseling the councilors" -- yes they are homophones in some dialects of English.
In this case, coupled with your exceptionally unsophisticated understanding of the law, and not even a passing familiarity with the issue at hand, I'm more inclined to believe that you didn't actually know the difference until it was pointed out to you. I mean, you said in your comment that it doesn't seem "obviously illegal" to lie about the date when an option was granted. I don't think you even understand what options backdating is, or what was happening in the accounting world at that time. You just seem like a guy who wants to complain that government is arbitrary. Your only evidence for this is that a reasonable CFO would have looked at other CFOs and copied their behavior, therefore nobody could possibly be held responsible.
It amazes me how you were able to deduce the depth of my knowledge about the tax law and financial law and English and current events from one comment and one typo (albeit repeated a bunch of times). Obviously, you have a direct access to my brain. That makes further discussion completely redundant, as you already know all my answers as soon as they form in my brain, thus eliminating the need for me to spend time on typing anything. It is only a pity that I can not possess the same ability - I'm sure you had very interesting and insightful comments on the topic itself, as opposed to my spelling, but being busy with the latter, could not find time to get to the former. My fault entirely, of course.
I like how you completely sidestepped the rebuttal of your argument which I also added in there. And how you've failed to respond to the question of why someone who can't demonstrate that they can distinguish council and counsel should be taken seriously on such a matter -- especially when they are making such bombastic claims. If we look further on in the thread, you make even more ridiculous claims, for example, that companies should be able to compensate their employees with free options.
Don't you think it's incumbent on someone who takes these positions to demonstrate that they understand why the law requires proper dating of options, or FFS why income tax exists even, as your proposals have very broad reaching implications?
There's a flip side to your loud and persistent focus on his misspelling. Why should anyone take you seriously on the matter when you refuse to address his points? At least he was writing about the topic at hand. All you've done is throw a temper tantrum about "ci" vs. "se".
Nice distraction though, are you a politician? They're really good at the whole "all sizzle and no steak" thing.
In this case, coupled with your exceptionally unsophisticated understanding of the law, and not even a passing familiarity with the issue at hand, I'm more inclined to believe that you didn't actually know the difference until it was pointed out to you. I mean, you said in your comment that it doesn't seem "obviously illegal" to lie about the date when an option was granted. I don't think you even understand what options backdating is, or what was happening in the accounting world at that time. You just seem like a guy who wants to complain that government is arbitrary. Your only evidence for this is that a reasonable CFO would have looked at other CFOs and copied their behavior, therefore nobody could possibly be held responsible.