That´s ok. What I take issue with is when you losen your belt at my expense; i.e. I am making a statement, and without even addressing the statement, you immediately take one of the keyterms, use it in a different definition and have changed the topic.
I think I would be more open to follow you on your tangents (which actually are completely immaterial for my point - other than having a word in common, albeit in totally different definitions), if you´d first respond to the actual statement (just so I get some feedback).
Yeah, if you give an example that merely begs the question...
Of course, the two uses of "authority" here still point to two entirely different definitions; and since in my initial statement I used "authority" exactly to distinguish an authoritative creator entity from an in itself convincing "game" that everyone plays naturally, your equivocation simply serves to ignore my point (not that I am assuming that that´s your intention, though).
Yes, again: It would be easier for me to get off talking about stuff that I didn´t talk about, if first I would at least get a feedback telling me that what I was talking about has been understood and taken into consideration (not necessarily agreed with, though).
Received: All this is completely irrelevant and immaterial for what I was talking about, in the first place. That´s the very problem I am trying to tell you about.
Doesn´t mean that the topic you have immediately changed it into by means of creative equivocation isn´t interesting, too, and that we can´t talk about it later. But I am frustrated with responses that simply ignore my point.
Upvote
0
