> still ongoing It's not. The parent and grandparent conversation stopped where they did. Our discussion isn't theirs. We're not pursuing the slippery slope on

> still ongoing It's not. The parent and grandparent conversation stopped where they did. Our discussion isn't theirs. We're not pursuing the slippery slope on their behalf, we're not debating the merits of particular word choices. > whole discussion exhausting? I do, it's entirely asinine And yet, you of your own free will continue to engage it. Something doesn't stack up between what you say and what you choose to do but it's your affair, i have no cause to dig deeper so i stop here on this particular avenue. > The argument is not nullified just because you try to will it so. Agreed. Your argument >>> it becomes almost impossible to talk and convey ideas was nullified by: >> If it's anything short of a law that expressly forbids particular words A law doesn't make it impossible for me to use the words - i can choose to use the words but only at the cost of breaking the law. It's fair to characterise that as "almost impossible". No construct exists with lesser severity than a law which exceeds the "almost impossible" test. QED. Someone once said "Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in the mud. After a while you realise the pig likes it."