Originally Posted By: Bill S
Should we try to establish some points on which we agree, so as to avoid constantly being at cross purposes?


Originally Posted By: Orac
If you were attempting a clarification it was extremely poor because it just took it into a new word game so one wondered if you really wanted an answer.


Your logic escapes me.

Quote:
Hey we scientists hardly ever agree in fact unless we have a solid theory we can't explain away but we don't play mindless stupid word games. We define things constantly to make sure both sides agree on what is being discussed and argued.


Not exactly supported by some recent exchanges!

Quote:
That was sort of the point so make some NOUN's to describe what you mean ... that is define a new noun .. you can't butcher noun's with context and qualifiers.


You rather missed the point there, Orac; but it’s not worth following up.

Quote:
So lets see if you can get bonus points


I have to say I’m not really interested in bonus points, or point scoring in any form.

Quote:
It has been given at least twenty times above I agree with any of those definitions it is a concept understood correctly by everyone it seems. The issue becomes trying to use infinity in certain fields and that requires context and intelligence and failing those we have to define things better.


I was looking for that “better” definition, one that was appropriate to the point you were making; if this is the best there is, we will be wallowing in verbiage until we have the sense to call a halt.

There never was nothing.