too rich?

[Tiberius]

OK Lilly I will try, I made a statement, without any reference to government, it was not about government, The statements parameters were that I was talking about 100 people their wealth and my reactions to it. I felt Tibs trying to force into that definition 'government', which I was not talking about, as any government would be outside of the statement as written.

Granted, you did not make reference to government. However, you did make reference to a "25% tax" in the context of money, and with the idea that it should be taken from 100 people. The only kind of tax I know of which applies under those constraints is one levied by a government body. That is why I went on to refute your point under the context of government; because you wrote it in a way which seemed to imply you meant a government tax.

I refute any statements of others telling me what I have written by paraphrasing it, or telling me what I think. I try to when ever I make statements about others work to use phrases like 'it seems', 'I think'. The English I use is based on usage and that is clear when you read my posts, in that I never (to my knowledge) use academic terms like straw-man, or any other terminology conventionally used in academic debate, unless the term has become part of common usage in my culture.

I was not paraphrasing; I quoted you exactly. I'm not trying to tell you what I think; I've asked you repeatedly to explain what you meant, and you have refused me on every occasion (and you still do).

If the English you use is based on usage, then you would be able to point to it's usage in the dictionary. You have not yet one so. We've had these kind of debates on the forum before, and it got so out of hand that we even mentioned in the rules that we don't approve of people using their own definitions of words. You are either using a definition of the word "tax" that is personal to you (which only confuses things), or you did not mean to use the word "tax" in the first place, and were talking about taking that money in a different way, because as far as the dictionary definition of "tax" is concerned, only a government can forcibly take a percentage of money in the form of tax. If someone else does it, it's either an involuntary fine, a voluntary fee, or theft.

As an Absurdist I know that I can draw meaning from a statement, but I am not able to tell the writer what he meant by that statement only what I can draw from it. As such when I am told by another what my statement means, I have to object, as that person can only say what it means to them.

You have not told me what your statement means. This whole situation could be resolved if you just told me the dictionary definition. You choose to continue it. That, my friend, is the only "absurd" thing here.

I object to being told this is bullshit, that I am flaming, that I am being deliberately obtuse or a child, because I do not want to redefine what I have written.

For fuck's sake, I am not telling you to redefine what you have written; nobody is. I'm asking you to define your terms. That is not redefinition; that is definition. The meaning of your use of the word "tax" is not clearly understood by people; we are asking what you actually meant by it. I think you used it in the wrong way, but I can't know that until you tell me what it means.

I have no concerns about another's interpretation of my words, but I object to them telling me their interpretation takes presidency over mine and therefore I should alter my text.

I'm not saying my interpretation takes precedent, nor am I saying you should alter your text. I have never told you that. Stop bullshitting to try and get your way out of this.

For the last fucking time, I'm saying that to me (and a lot of people apparently), your use of the word "tax" seemed to suggest a government tax. You deny this. I asked for clarification as to what definition you were using. I'm still waiting for that clarification.