Oh, bother. Now we're going to ban wooderson because he asked some stupid questions and refuses to acknowledge simple realities? Come on. Look at what he's reduced to here. Laugh at him. Don't ban him.
Wooderson is using a rhetorical tactic that annoys the heck out of me: Seeking to define every term used. Diogenes used it well, but history seems to agree that Diogenes was an asshat. In modern use I've found that it's usually deployed to do any or all of three things:
1. Delay actual debate of substance.
2. Divert the debate away from something that one knows nothing about.
3. Divert the debate away from something that is contradictory to ones initial assertion.
Regardless, it almost always serves to beclown the person who uses it.
The ultimate example of which is the Clintonesque what the definition of 'is' is? I have now read the penultimate example on this forum:
[beclown] How do you define "the company he keeps"? [/beclown]
quod erat demonstrandum: The people that one freely associates with.