I have often feel that in order to frustrate findings and theories, a poor argument is ‘that word does not mean what you want it to mean’. Yet, if someone has attached a definition to that word and is using it as so, the argument is pointless and serves only to show the irrationality of the one arguing against the word. No discussion towards knowledge can be gained by quibbling over such a thing. If someone has attached a meaning to the word ‘dog’ to mean cat in their proposition, then dog means cat. To reply, ‘dog doesn’t mean cat so your argument fails’ is preposterous. He’s giving a new name to the cat, and that name is dog. Confusing? Perhaps so. But if that how he wishes to put forward his argument, let him do so and don’t argue over him doing so as it ignores totally the content of what he has said.

I try to use the simplest language I can and not revel in adjectives or overindulge in terminology because it does not - in the main - seem to lead to definitive, definite, objective truths. And I’m very interested in the latter!