Comment: TL;DR Gee Josf, again, the initial point of contention was over

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: World choices? (see in situ)

TL;DR Gee Josf, again, the initial point of contention was over

word definitions, collective vs. collectivism.

Not: whether you can articulate back to me Common Law remedies, which frankly I DON'T disagree with you on, while taking up bulk of your replies to me...on topics not raised or relevant to the initial point of this on-going Josf-ACM back and flourish.

And, YES, I actually READ BOTH of your above and below replies: moi = speed-reader; but apropos of the actual discussion on this thread, I'm intentionally limiting the focus of my reply, only to the relevant extent in regards to original word definition question, and your accusations of "insult," and your use of Common Law Grand Jury.

So, after actually having read your treatise, to me, it's simply a long ass, albeit, pretty lyrically crafty way of saying that you STILL don't agree what definition of the terms are, because of the arbitrary nature of how word definitions come to be.

Which, as you've articulated before, and to which I generally AGREED to your description of the process in which how words come to be, in the abstract, but NOT in regards to "Collectivism vs. collective"-discussion.

Which, I believe, we've pretty much fleshed out, by now, at least to my satisfaction.

And, I'm fine with that, again, as I've stated in the previous reply.

Having stated such, so now you shouldn't be surprised when I ask you: so...WTF's your point, again, with this reply?

Now Josf, I respect some of your writings and your ability to reference Constitutional heritage/history/common laws. And, as I've stated numerous times, I AGREE with MOST of the points NOT related to "collectivism vs. collective"-discussion, that you've cited, so far.

So excuse me, when I ask you sincerely: WTF are you trying to accomplish here?

You and I already essentially settled on the fact that we both agree as to the arbitrary nature of how words come to be, and yet, you and I STILL differ on "collectivism vs. collective." And that regardless, outside those two word definitions, I agree with A LOT of what you've stated so far, especially when you referenced those historical markers (as a standalone discussion) that you thought was relevant and even though I didn't, though I do however WHOLLY AGREE with your limited, specific example of using how "federalist" come be be so bastardized, as an apt example, apropos of how word definitions are not immutable in regard to the "collectivism vs. collective" definitional origin discussion.

We're pretty much in agreement on ALL that.

And, as I've reiterated numerous times, I'm perfectly fine with the things that we've basically settled on points that you and I seem to both agree on, as well as the fact that I'm fine with the points that you STILL disagree with me on.

I'm cool with ALL that, too.

So, again, the "non sequitur:" why are you expending bulk of your reply to me, on Common Law remedies?

And worse, proceeding to accuse me of insulting you, when you've spoken with light conveyances of tonal condescension peppered throughout your series of replies?

So, when I had no problems with your tone, so far, but now you're gonna feign indignant sanctimony at the prospect of a minor literary joshing at no higher negative parity than the ones you've thrown at me?

As the kids would say: puhleeze. xD

I'm NOT the one who 'insulted' you, first.

In my earlier reply to you, the ONLY portion in which I address you directly, mulling possible outcome, a characterization which was the only paragraph that you MAY, if you didn't understand the reply as intended, would take 'offense' was this:

And yet, there's nothing more ironic than someone demanding to stick to word definitions, who is not aware of actual word definitions

Now, considering, how from my POV, you were basically doing the same thing you've been doing all along (discarding word definitions), so I felt justified in reminding you the "irony" of (as you've laid out your case; which I obviously disagreed) how you essentially accept word definitions for your own consumption, but not ones from others:

There is no way one person can negotiate with another person honestly if one person usurps the other persons power to agree to the meaning of words. Dictatorship is a process employed by dictators. There is one born every minute?

Yeah, but WHERE in my previous reply did I ever invoke coercive enforcement of a word definition?

To another person, mainly me, reading that? The fact that I've never asserted coercive enforcement, yet you answered AS IF that were the case, in context of my original point of discussion in how a member of voluntary collective is NOT same as a collectivist, that clearly communicates to me that it could only mean one thing: you STILL don't understand the difference between collectivsm vs. collective.

Yet, your rather articulate explanation of what a coercive entity would do (even though that wasn't my point), thus "someone demanding to stick to word definitions," was an apt, fitting answer, IMO (AT THE TIME, before you and I expended further back and forth on now agreed to reality as we both seem to accept it: arbitrary nature of how word definitions come to be).

As for the rest:

Now assuming you read all my words up to this point, and even after reading/at the least perfunctory perusing this rather verbose wordsmithiness, if you STILL think "collec-TIVE" means an entity, or a group of people who are "collect-IVISTs" who subscribes to "collect-IVISM"?? Well, we're gonna be at an impasse; we simply are gonna talk in circles.

All that says is basically:

'Josf, I've laid out my case, now even after you read that, and if you STILL disagree, we're gonna come to a point of equal immutable point of contention, whereby thereafter, it becomes moot, as you'll say one thing, and I'll say another and we won't see eye to eye.'

Then, I closed with:

But, other than to highly recommend that one avoids commenting 'in medias res'? No bigs, though. C'est la vie .0)

Which, basically says:

'Josf, I was already responding to others on this topic; perhaps you jumped in the middle of the conversation (as per "in medias res" reference) without tracking all past discussion above and below this reply-box: because in my mind, seeing as how I personally see no controversy in the actual dictionary definition of the terms "collectivism" and "collective," especially when I've also cited where in, other sources to bolster the case. And who knows: perhaps you didn't see that, and that MAYBE why you still seem to disagree with me, by replying in length on HOW you communicate your own understanding of word definitions (as explained, your process is one by which I generally accept, except on already established definitions)??'

Then, I closed with:

'No biggie. If we disagree? Such is life + a smiley face.'

So from that (what I thought was) cordial closing, came your 'tude reply, which frankly I initially had no problems with, until you wanted to pretend that I'm the one who initially vaguely insulted you; so let's make this fact abundantly clear : you spoke in condescending manner, which in anyone's mind would qualify as 'insulting,' first. To wit:

What would be the point?


"Can I leave freely?"

If you do then there is one less defender, you are certainly free to go, and if the attackers are very present dangers, you may likely be caught up and enslaved, having freely gone away from the defenders, and then you can ask your company of criminals if you are free to go at that point.

I think that is saying pretty much the same thing as this:

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, What should be the reward of such sacrifices? Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!"
—Samuel Adams

[** You're really going to tell me that your Samuel Adams addendum, wasn't meant to be lightly insulting, when you yourself state: "I think that is saying pretty much the same thing as this:" just before that, considering the content? Stop insulting conversational flow & common sense, Josf! lol.]

In entertaining conversation that line of thinking may be fun, but to me it misses the point.


Who, and what army, is offering actualness of which word?


Reading does not often reach the goal of accurate communication, in my experience.


We will do no such thing. If the words I offer appear to reach a point of diminishing returns, as if my estimate is that there is no use in further efforts to communicate accurately with you, then I will find competitive things to do with my time.


If that is what you are doing, collecting me up into some nebulous group of people who, in your experience, "talk in circles," then such an offer is hereby rejected.

No thanks.

Nope, no light conveyances of condescension whatsoever!

But I never really considered that 'insulting,' though I 'get' that it was borderline MEANT to be. And, if you don't know that, or think that's how you came across, then you know less and have even less command of literary communications devices and tonal choice in your diction, than I previously gave you credit for.

Unless, you actually are unaware of the fact that in most polite circles, condescending tone IS equally considered insulting; unless you want to tell me that definitions of "condescension" and "insult," are also arbitrarily derived. LOL xD

That said, frankly these 'insulting' tonal ranges go on all the time in online replies, so I literally have NO PROBLEMS with them...that is until, one party decides somehow his sensitive self is more insulted, than mine should've been.


That said, I do respect your aim to pursue Common Law Grand Jury, for what that may yield, regardless of the current paradigm. And I DO 'get' that you were also using that in the similar rationale basis for argument as you've used "federalist" previously, to further bolster your point. No, I DO 'get' that.

More power to you.

I commend your efforts in pursuing the use of actual Common Laws, amidst the bastardized status quo 'judicial' paradigm; come what that may be.

Which makes you taking the time to focus 80% of the reply on that, essentially, is even more commendable. And yet, again makes the case that it's a "concoction of apt and irrelevant non sequiturs."

"Apt," because you DID explain your basis for your reply.

And yet, you STILL are of the mind that "collective" & "collectivism" don't mean what they mean, because you deem the arrival of their definitions to be more arbitrary than others. (As I've stated numerous times, that I 'get' your rationale and reasoning for WHY you still disagree)

Which is fine, but equally, I don't need to accept your stance (again, as we both seem to have fleshed out, by now).

That said, as for "non sequitur"?

Um...don't know: should we define that first?

Shall I invoke the 'dictionary' definition and you reply with another treatise in condescending tone and pretend it's not, and me being appreciator of words, read it with joy, however disagreeable, but impressed by your patience and your logical absurdity, especially, when from the 1st contact to now, has still barely addressed the original topic of contention?


No, really. What would you do, if you were me, observing your line of reasoning and replies?

If you honestly don't think that from my point of view, when all your replies to me have been about (aside from some 10%-ish relevant answer to the two initial terms discussed), it's been anything but the initial topic?

Yeah. Non-sequitur, as in "it does NOT follow."

Or... is there a different definition in Josf-speak dictionary? .o)

Unless Josf, you honestly, honestly think that "Common Law Grand Jury" has ANYTHING to do with the initial point (NOT what direction you chose all by yourself to veer off onto) of discussing how a "collective" is NOT the same as "collectivism"/"collectivist"??

No, honestly.

Does that make it clear, WHY your replies have been both "apt and irrelevant non-sequiturs," to me, now?

Seriously, is this how you 'normally' discuss things with those you do know or choose to associate with?

I'm seriously curious.

Because I don't have such buddies, whom, when I ask to borrow a socket wrench from, then she/he gives me a Philips screw driver, and tries to convince me because they're fundamentally based on the act of torquing, to a less or large degree, it'll do the job.

So, arguendo: if you asked me about a Tandoori chicken recipe, and I replied to you not anecdotally interweaving Constitutional history to answer you in between pause as I'm replying to you about de-boning, seasoning, or marinating, but in fact, ignore your original question altogether and delve into original penalty for the violation of the 1792 Coinage Act, and the disastrously individual sovereignty destroying responses in Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion, in such scenario, what would I have accomplished?

You see my dilemma, Josf?

Plus, you do 'get' that ignoring someone's question and going off on tangent that you fail to draw back into the point, in itself can be considered 'rude' thus 'insulting,' right?

But, I never said that I was "insulted" by you, when you did that. So, what do you exactly think you're accomplishing by accusing me of things that I equally could've accused you of, but chose not to because I saw absolutely zero point in doing so?

I'm secure in my understanding of the world; I don't equate length of reply, nor elaborate explanation of tangential subject matters to mean that, that person automatically knows more or has proper command of the subject matter that they're speaking of.

So, excuse me as I call your BS on your selective philosophical purity on some words and not others; frankly anyone reading your replies would not be wrong to be prompted to inquire: 'So...basically Josf thinks some words just mean what he wants it to mean, and others, not?'

Indeed: "what would be the point?"

LOL ;0)

But, I do appreciate your replies, Josf, sincerely.

I think I've pretty much fleshed out my position, and you on yours, too.

My original point of discussion has always been about "collective" vs. "collectivism" and how they're not the same. Everything after that, indeed, have been all "non-sequiturs."

But seeing as how I actually AGREE with a lot of what you have to say, if you're open to it, we'll talk again in depth, on other matters, as topics present themselves, here.

And, I truly, sincerely wish you luck with your Common Law Grand Jury efforts. Let me know how it goes.

So with that said: I bid you adieu on this topic, and to you Josf, for now.

It's been fun, and enlightening. And no worries .D


Predictions in due Time...

"Let it not be said that no one cared, that no one objected once it's realized that our liberties and wealth are in jeopardy." - Dr. Ronald Ernest Paul