Chumly wrote:Hi Finn d'Abuzz,
It's true I have been known to take a few liberties with the scope of a thread and allude to the considerations of defining one's terms. Thankfully I am an iconoclast in this regard and everyone else is imminently well behaved (a little playfully sarcastic humor)
Recall however that neither you nor I defined anarchy, nor did I state my bias was one of anarchy. All I said was "I will make a partial, and future idealized counter, by suggesting that if the world's population was sparse enough, and the technological level was self-sustainingly high enough, that a quantifiable and sizable reduction in overall government could be achieved without it being a net negative."
Further to define one's terms by exclusion is not a definition as per your tree analogy. Now I am just being argumentative for it's own sake, which it just plain immature and another foible only I fall prey to alas (a little self-depreciating humor)
Word to The Wise - If you must identify self-
deprecating humor, it loses a great deal of its effect. Avoid, as best you can, emoticons and parenthetical explanations of your wit.
As for a definition of anarchy, I am content with Webster's.
You are certainly free to diverge from the thrust of a particular thread, but you can hardly fault participants for assuming you are remaining within the framework of a thread if you do not announce your change in course.
Skip the
too-cute assertions that those who respond to your postings within the context of a given thread have somehow been misdirected by your clever feints. No one really cares to examine your posts that closely.
