Since you've declined to describe your background
and up to now have not made the simple concession the dictionary is the authority on
definitions. Others might say you are of good character, but I am not convinced that this title can be earned by abstaining from some vices in which you are not really interested.
You say, you fail to see that my point? In objecting to your proposition(s) that "Words acquire meaning, but words do not standardize definitions" I was not being convoluted. My stated objections to those propositions were, at first, fairly clear and concise, I thought, but you kept stirring the pot. Your usual maneuver is to correct me a few posts later by representing the view I had expressed earlier as your view now, which you then imply I do not hold. This is not "good character." It may pass as such, though we can identify your associates and see who is promoting it as such.
I conclude that your conversation up to now is
(beyond reasonable doubt) at least in part an exercise in "messing with the minds of correspondents." I propose as a motive that you are hostile to mainstream biological science, though not necessarily some parts of physical science, and are an agent who is approved by a unusually skewed religious racket.
These are not formal accusations, nor do I mean them as particularly unfriendly, though I disapprove of that general activity. I do not pose as the arbiter of public decency nor propose any punishment. But I do not trust you as a correspondent on this forum. I expect you know this in your heart of hearts, which you conceal along with your resume and your knowledge of most kinds of science. And even though you close with the words
"Warm regards," I'm not convinced you really are so nice. Maybe it's another kind of warmth.