Aurino
Sorry you didn't address this note to me, since i found that note very coherent and admirable.

Aurino wrote:
"In fact, I think most conversations on this forum center around semantic issues, not logical ones."

This is fair; one reason there's so much trouble in the world is that its big assertions are not rigorously examined and rigorously defended or altered. So if you find me demanding precise definitions, it's because on some matters, the U.S. Founding Parents and I don't care what the tradition is -- we want to know the logic of it.
Then, the same and I will blather on about Jesus -- as Newton, Galileo, Jefferson and many of our best scientists did...and many of their most annoying adversaries in debate about science or policy. What a world. I don't know whether you have read the story of Jesus. The author of the intermediate draft of our Declaration of Independence (Thos. Jefferson) physically cut the story of Jesus out of the Bible with scissors and pasted it together, minus miracles, for his life-long use.

Aurino wrote:
"As much as math can be said to be "logic applied to numbers", we can probably describe semantics as "logic applied to words". However, there is a problem that is seldom taken into account: while the rules of semantics are clear, the definitions of words are not."

To me, words either express artistic/romantic ambiance or, to be considered logical, they must be used in a way that is specified as to quantity, proportion, sequence...in short, unless they are just for mood, words have no business pretending to be tools for accuracy. They are useful in deception only because they are pretended to be tools for accuracy.

Well, I forgot to be funny again. Damn!