> You're making misleading use of language so it's hard to believe you're arguing sincerely. Misleading? I thought I was being straightforward and honest, henc

> You're making misleading use of language so it's hard to believe you're arguing sincerely. Misleading? I thought I was being straightforward and honest, hence "stolen". > Offering someone compensation for doing something for you is not what most people would consider "theft". It all depends on perspective. Hence "stolen". If you were "compensating" someone "$0.10" for something worth "$1000", a lot of people would consider it "theft". > You can't just take a word meaning one thing, change its meaning, then assume all the judgements about the old meaning also apply to the new meaning. But that's not what I did. The reason why I wrote "stolen" is that this is complex issue that isn't black or white. The only people who think so are agenda driven opportunists. Slaves were compensated with housing and food, I'd consider it "theft". As I said, you have an agenda and your agenda drives you thinking. Not rationality. That's the problem. As I recommended before: "Look at the problem from afar."