You've understood me from the beginning?! Then all those places where you misrepresented my views about dictionaries were on purpose, and not because you didn't understand my point? Good to finally find out who I'm dealing with, I suppose.
I must tell you that you will not move me.
I know that! That's why I'm dropping it!
You’ve cited several news puke publications to support your view of the ‘popular use’ and the common meaning of ‘Creationism.’
Yeah, that Wall Street Journal is a real "news puke publication," all right. And you overlook the fact that I've cited several sources by people who call themselves creationists!
I might find in popular use ‘Conservatism’ means bigot, racist, mean-spirited, hateful, indifferent, greedy, selfish, sexist, and on, and on, and on.
Yeah, you might--if you could actually be bothered to look! Go ahead, find me a bunch of places in the WSJ, the LA Times-Picayune, or the New Yorker where "conservative" is used, without elaboration, as a synonym for racist or sexist.
you understand my point
I understand that you're making something up because you don't have any support for your original point.
you failed to appreciate the wider implications of what you are doing.
There are no wider implications of what I'm doing. If you have an argument with the fact that "creationism" is almost never used to mean just "a philosophical tenet of Christianity," take it up with the people who call themselves creationists or the people who set creationism in opposition to evolution right here on FR. I have no agenda in using their own term--in fact, I'm doing them a favor. Maybe I'll start demanding that they use "creationist" to refer to people who accept the theory of evolution too, and direct them to you when they object.
Don’t put it off on me that you wanted to have your cake and eat it too . . . that you wanted to undercut the validity of dictionary definitions displeasing to you, and, at the same time, to pretend to honor their admirable but futile efforts at telling us what words really mean. I simply named what you were doing. You were the one doing it.
”That’s why I’m dropping it!”
So you say.
”Yeah, that Wall Street Journal is a real "news puke publication," all right.”
The news page? Or the editorial page? For years now there’s been a considerable difference in the philosophical stance of the Journal’s news page versus its editorial page. You didn’t know that? Whoops!
”. . . if you could actually be bothered to look!”
The propagandist habits of most news outlets is why I haven’t “bothered” to look for years.
”Go ahead, find me a bunch of places in the WSJ, the LA Times-Picayune, or the New Yorker where "conservative" is used, without elaboration, as a synonym for racist or sexist.”
It doesn’t work quite that way. Propagandists are a little more subtle than that, although not much. They refer to oppressive regimes as ‘conservative’ (like they did with the Afghan Taliban); they refer to conservative members of Congress as ‘ultra,’ but they would never use even Liberal, much less ‘ultra,’ to describe Ted Kennedy; they played up the assassination of a Kansas late-term abortionist for two weeks, giving full play to anyone who wanted to utter a pious statement about “hate,” but made the assassination of an Arkansas Army recruiter a one-day news item and kept it as brief as possible, because the event gave them no opportunity to pin ‘hate’ on a Conservative or a Christian. The Palin – Letterman dustup is a graphic indication of how Conservatives are treated by media pukes. FR is rife each day with examples of how Conservatives are treated by them. And I have to demonstrate to you how the Drive-Bys want desperately to associate ‘Conservative’ with bigot, racist, mean-spirited, hateful, indifferent, greedy, selfish, sexist, etc, etc, etc? Perhaps you agree, and approve of that behavior? Maybe that’s why you can’t bring yourself to admit to my point.
I owe you nothing.