>I don't feel the need to be a dictionary every time discussion of terms comes up. ...< no, you don't have to provide definitions all the time. But if you reject some definition of some word (e.g., "corruption") it seems that you have some alternative definition in mind, which you should share with us, at least if you want to have a serious discussion of the issues. Alternatively, you shouldn't use the word in question in any kind of serious conversation. BTW, I reject the Platonic view that definitions correspond to ideal forms that exist outside of our consciousness of them, so that perceived "corruption" (etc.) represents merely phenomenal forms of the ideal. Rather, any definition is provisional, used to clarify thought, organize empirical investigation, provide greater understanding, etc. concerning the perceived empirical world. (Similarly, all scientific "conclusions" are really working hypotheses.) No definition is hard and fast. Thus, the rejection of a definition because it's not hard and fast seems a rejection of definitions in general. JD
