Great -- if you read pages 1 and 2 of the link, then you will see why the statement I made is not inconsistent. If you continue repeating that it is, then like your circular reasoning claims which were also erroneous, I can only assume that the repitition is designed to provoke.

If you'd clicked the link where it says "science journalists conspire," you would have found that this has nothing to do with conspiracies. The author is simply complaining that people who write astronomy news stories for magazines usually give distances as light travel time distances and do not mention redshifts, which can cause some confusion.

So how about addressing the topic of this thread and answering some of the questions in the OP?