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.
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.
I'd say this whole line of misunderstanding involves your own unclean hands, along with mine. In your post #1134 you said:
If someone shoves a burning torch into my clenched fist I am not receiving it, I am being forced to hold it.
I assumed by that someone was "shoving" a torch in your hand, that it was not meant as a gift. I don't shove many gifts on people, especially in the sense that you use the word "gift". I thought your whole point was regarding the meaning of "receive" alone, not "receive as a gift".