[Ha Ha Thats Very Logical]

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.

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.

[YHAOS]

”I asserted that the word "creationist" as it's commonly used has a certain meaning.”

The assertion does not prove the fact.

”You have been unable to do the same for any other meaning.”

Another assertion. I turned to the quintessential repository of language; the dictionary. That didn’t fit your agenda, so you turned from participant to flag thrower. I don’t recognize your flag. If you can make flat declarations, then so can I.

”You can cast this as some great war of dictionaries vs. propaganda if you want . . .”

No, it’s actually a rather sordid tale of your murder of the language.