Billy
I grow weary of your idiotic definition shell game. I have made it abundantly clear that the word "free" as used in the quote from the US Supreme Court, and by myself DOES NOT mean "without charge or cost". It is obvious you play these idiotic games in order to dodge facts you can't refute.
Marriam-Websters defines "free" as: 1 a : having the legal and political rights of a citizen b : enjoying civil and political liberty outside domination d : enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another
Can't you even be more original in your dodges? Regardless, being a dodge, it is clear you can't refute.
You are correct! When a word, as currently defined, is either ambigious, oxymoronic or simply insufficent, I won't hesitate in the least at better defining the meaning which I am attempting to convey. Otherwise, my meaning will be obscured or mutated. When I refer to words such as "free", where the intended meaning is "enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another", it is to the benefit of my meaning that I exclude such definitions as "without charge or cost".
There is no need. When my use of a word requires a special meaning, I make sure the reader is informed of that special meaning. If they disreguard it, such as yourself, that's not my fault.
