Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8531066" data-attributes="member: 6795602">IMO that’s precisely what I did when I quoted the 3 primary definitions (one of which is the definition you were using). Or at least that was my intention. Perhaps it wasn’t as obvious as I thought it to be.I can agree with that.&nbsp; I think it’s a very valid point.&nbsp; But it’s something you also did - at least IMO and that’s not to call you out or put you in the defensive but to highlight that sometimes our words convey more than we intend (i know im often guilty of this). Sitting back, I don’t believe you really think your definition was the only one or that mine is not valid, you are more reasonable than that. But it did initially come across to me that way and I hope you can understand why from you initial comments below.The bolded is a definition (at least a partial one) and it seemed to outright exclude the definition I use.Edit: also apologies for taking 5+ pages to get to this point.&nbsp; And also for not acknowledging the initial point you were intending to make - that heated discussions whether over semantics or ideas are rarely productive. Because that is a point I agree with.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8531066, member: 6795602"] IMO that’s precisely what I did when I quoted the 3 primary definitions (one of which is the definition you were using). Or at least that was my intention. Perhaps it wasn’t as obvious as I thought it to be. I can agree with that. I think it’s a very valid point. But it’s something you also did - at least IMO and that’s not to call you out or put you in the defensive but to highlight that sometimes our words convey more than we intend (i know im often guilty of this). Sitting back, I don’t believe you really think your definition was the only one or that mine is not valid, you are more reasonable than that. But it did initially come across to me that way and I hope you can understand why from you initial comments below. The bolded is a definition (at least a partial one) and it seemed to outright exclude the definition I use. Edit: also apologies for taking 5+ pages to get to this point. And also for not acknowledging the initial point you were intending to make - that heated discussions whether over semantics or ideas are rarely productive. Because that is a point I agree with. [/QUOTE]

Verification