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.
It seems that your confidence that you understood me was misplaced. It's really not that complicated:
I asserted that the word "creationist" as it's commonly used has a certain meaning.
You claimed it has other meanings that are just as common.
I produced several examples of the word used as I claim, from newspapers, magazines, scholarly works, the websites of self-described creationists, and from FR itself.
You have been unable to do the same for any other meaning.
That's really it. You can cast this as some great war of dictionaries vs. propaganda if you want, but it's not that grand an issue.