 Whether McTaggart’s regress is vicious has proven a subject of much debate. Some philosophers see the regress as demonstrating that any attempt to describe the world in A-theoretic terms is ultimately inconsistent, and see the A-theorist as merely invoking another inconsistent account of reality every time they attempt to explain away this inconsistency. Mellor, for example, says (1998, 75) “[McTaggart’s] critics react by denying the viciousness of the regress. At every stage, they say, we can remove the apparent contradiction by distinguishing the times at which the events have incompatible [A-properties]. They ignore the fact that the way they distinguish these times … only generates more contradictions.” Others see McTaggart as simply making a confused challenge at each stage—as mistakenly concluding from the fact that things were one way and are now another incompatible way that they are both ways at once—and continuing to make the same mistake in response to each of the A-theorist’s correct explanations that in fact the incompatible properties are only ever had one after another, never at the same time. Skow (2015, 87), e.g., says “At each stage [McTaggart] accuses objective becoming [i.e. things changing their A-properties] of being inconsistent, and [the A-theorist] shows that allegation to be false. And even an infinite sequence of false allegations does not add up to a good argument.”