Rob Perkins wrote:

[...]
Beside the point. You're moving the goalposts, and committing ad
hominem: "He used a 'scripture' so therefore can't be relied upon."
It's not reasonable.

Ah, but it is reasonable. It isn't merely that you "used a scripture". If
you were discussing some religious detail, that would be reasonable.

However, you used one in place of a dictionary. That is not a reasonable
act, any more than citing a Spanish dictionary would be for claiming proper
use of English words would be so.

What point is there in having a discussion with a person where that person
feels free to use unreasonable sources for citation? If we cannot even
agree upon something as basic as the lexicon, discussion isn't even truly
possible. You can make claims like "experiments require faith", and never
even "know" (or "care", more likely) that you're using at least one word in
a grossly nonstandard way.

In your language, perhaps you're even correct. But I'm not using your
language. I'm using English.

It would be akin to someone saying "the rudder turns the airplane". Many
here would leap to correct this. But if the poster of such a statement
cited different definitions for either "rudder" (those things on the
trailing edge of the wings outboard of the flaps) or "turn" (rotate around
an axis) or "airplane" (a waterbound vehicle), then the statement would be
correct in the speaker's lexicon.

But that wouldn't be English.

Of course, you can define "English" however you want in your own lexicon.
That's just how pointless such a discussion becomes.

- Andrew