by exploited » Wed Mar 27, 2019 1:21 pm
There are some Galt levels of obstinacy going on here, my goodness.
People are using the word incorrectly, on a regular basis, and have been for two years. I don't know how I can make this any more clear to the fine barristers at PCF. There are several examples of this in this very thread.
They are not using the word in accordance with any formal definition, legal or dictionary definition or otherwise. We know this because you can hop onto literally any political message board in the world, right now, and see people describing particular incidents as "collusion," despite those incidents being (A) not illegal, (B) not secret, (C) not an agreement. And, because I know you f**k autists can't pick up subtext worth a damn, I used the word literally here for a reason.
The reason I brought this up, ironically, was in the hopes of avoiding the exact conversations we've been having.