Words are sounds created to symbolize an object or action or feeling or
quality or concept.

If each person attaches his own object, action, feeling, quality, or concept
to each sound, no communication is possible. A word without an agreed upon
meaning has *no* meaning.

A word's meaning takes form only when it is agreed upon.

Currently, to facilitate communication, people who study words professionally
decide by debate, discussion, and consensus how each sound is to be defined
(what it "means"), and its "proper" pronunciation. When a sound has more
than one meaning these meanings are listed in descending numerical order with
the meaning most often used in normal social discourse being assigned the
numeral "1". Examples are commonly given to clarify the meaning(s) further.
..
Each of us is free, of course, to ignore the agreed upon meanings of words,
and assign his own meaning to whatever word he desires. However, to do so, as
far as communication is concerned, could be depicted as verbally spiting into
the wind. He is going to be the only one who "gets it".

To debate is an intellectual process that uses words precisely, employing
reason and logic, to convey one's perspective to another in a way that will
convince the other that one's perspective accurately reflects reality.

Too often, when reason and/or logic fail, one gives into the temptation to
resort to using words to elicit emotional responses and take the discourse off
the intellectual table. This is the equivalent of knocking over the chess
board when you have concluded you can't win.

If one posts a thoughtful post, anticipating reasoned debate, and receives, in
response, follow-ups containing name calling or taunts, what the responder is
actually communicating is that he is unable or unwilling to respond with
reason and logic to counter your argument and that he would like, not merely
to change the subject, but the game itself.

One then must decide whether to spend one's limited time engaging in a name
calling contest, or ignoring linguistic Neanderthals and refusing to be
distracted from one's original purpose.

I can tolerate common ignorance, what I find difficult is to tolerate
ignorance so profound that its bearer wears it proudly.

Able sincerely believes he knows the "truth". Cain, just as sincerely,
believes the "truth" to be something other than Abel's belief.

Both believe the other to be "wrong" despite knowing the sincerity and depth
of the other's belief, yet neither is likely to wonder whether he might be
wrong despite his own sincerity and depth of belief.

Though often quick to question the correctness of the beliefs of others, we
are reluctant to seriously examine our own.

We simply assume, when confronted with an idea that doesn't fit into our world
view, that since we know the "truth" and since this "idea" isn't part of our
"truth", it must be "wrong" and, therefore, unworthy of examination and honest
consideration; worthy, in fact, of nothing less than ridicule and rejection.

There are, of course, ideas not worthy of acceptance. If one gives an idea
honest research, examination and consideration and finds it defective in some
way, it is then worthy of rejection. Such rejection might best be expressed
with compassion and an attempt to explain the rejection using reason and
logic.

Ridicule should be saved for those who take pride in their refusal to consider
the possibility they are wrong.

Of course, this is just my opinion.

"I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people, and the West in general, into an unbearable hell and a choking life."
Osama bin Laden, October, 2001 (quoted in NewsMax.com 2/1/02)