So where is the closing quote here, and do you have a link to the paper in which he said this? (not that it matters much as Hubble was not a noted supporter of the Expanding Universe). My point is that redshift is described in terms of km/sec, and that the Hubble constant is normally given in kilometers per second per megaparsec. Even people in Arp's camp describe red-shift as kilometers per second. People who describe redshift as a z= number have an implied relativistic velocity. Given that most mainstream cosmologists don't think of cosmological recession as quite the same thing as spatial velocity, but rather as an artifact of expansion, I think you are playing fast and loose with the language, when you say that I am wrong when I say H is the relationship between red-shift and distance.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak