Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: GOPcapitalist
"The only interpretation error is on your end, capitan. I used the common universally accepted definition of a military "capture." You respond with a hideously nuanced quasi-definition that derives more from your need to save face than from any dictionary or etymology."

I cannot account for your errors.

Webster's College Dictionary -

\ capture: 1. to take by force or stratagem; take prisoner; seize; apprehend. 2. to gain control of or exert influence over. 3. to take possession of.

Seems like none of the three most common usages of the word require the use of force, although definition one allows it. You should work on your vocabulary.

165 posted on 11/05/2004 1:06:02 AM PST by capitan_refugio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies ]


To: capitan_refugio
Seems like none of the three most common usages of the word require the use of force, although definition one allows it. You should work on your vocabulary.

All would require a coercive exertion or inference though as the act of capture entails that the captive does not willingly consent to the act. He may go peacefully or he may go with a fight but consent is not present in an act of capture. But back to Fort Davis, considering that there was nobody around the fort to either consent or have it unwillingly taken from them by any means, a capture could not have happened.

167 posted on 11/05/2004 1:23:45 AM PST by GOPcapitalist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

To: capitan_refugio; GOPcapitalist; lentulusgracchus
Post #165 seems proof of your need to contort.

Definition #1 does a little bit more than allow it.

capture: 1. to take by force or stratagem;

What exactly is the strategy for taking an abandoned fort? Did secret orders fall into the hands of the cacti, allowing them to put up a mean fight?

As far as you being in a 'red' part of CA, you told me where you lived when I posted from LALA land that we could meet for a beer... Since I don't know exactly where you're at, I'll just point out that the area is pretty blue on the county-by-county map. Maybe you have a household-by-household map in which your residence is painted red. So be it. My county was blue. I live in the second largest city in IA. The color of my county does not matter, except for demonstration purposes and general interest. My state was red (for once). Were it not, I don't see how that would reflect on me personally.

The case of Lemmon was not the first or most eggregious of your transgressions. The deception started in a response to lentulusgracchus, in which you quoted the prosecution's argument of the Amy Warwick as the decision. IIRC, you stated four points as the decision of the court. The findings of the court were the oppoisite in all four instances.

No retraction was made.

No apology was offered.

In fact, you continued to hammer on it as though nobody had pointed out your error.

Am I remembering things as they actually happened, or was that just a bad dream?

198 posted on 11/05/2004 5:40:09 AM PST by Gianni
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson