You left out one little word, Custos of the Woods: "received it as a gift. When you play the gotcha game you'd better be sure you have a strong hand before you smirkingly put your cards down face up.
I am very comfortable with my hand. I did not leave out the word "gift", you did. If you go back to your post in 1134 to Harley, you begin with insults, then you use the torch example. The immediately preceding paragraph speaks nothing about "gift" or gifting. You were explaining what you think "receive" means. You were illustrating your immediately preceding thought. The remainder of your post was, of course, simply more insults.
"Receiving" a thing has nothing to do with whether it was meant as a gift (Sam received injuries in the accident.). And, as I have elsewhere illustrated, the meaning of "gift" is not dependent on whether it was willingly accepted.
First, regarding my "insults"--they responded to your own 'gotcha" tone.
Second, you wrote: "'Receiving' a thing has nothing to do with whether it was meant as a gift (Sam received injuries in the accident.)"
This illustrates well the way you ignore the context. I said that a gift requires reception for completion. The reception I referred to is the reception of a gift. My claim was that once a gift is offered, unless it is received, it is not fully a gift. You use the word "reception" in an entirely different (non-gift) context, then claim that it proves something about the role played by reception in a gift context.
This is circular reasoning. Of course, if you use the word "reception" in a non-gift context, it does not require a gift for its meaning. You switched from "receive a gift" to "receive a thing." I fully agree that if one receive a "thing" (a non-gift thing) then reception will a non-gift reception. But the context of the argument is gifting. You did an apples-oranges switch again. You think that words can be taken from one context and plopped into another context without consequences for their meaning. They can't.