Long winded posts about the misuse of the word , are rants,
Last post around, you wrote that those posts were really all about semantics, but now you're calling them rants...
I read that definition of "rant" that you posted, and nowhere in it do I see "long winded" as part of that definition, let alone leading to the conclusion you draw.
Not that I see any such "long winded" posts here to begin with anyhow.
So you're saying then that these posts offering up definitions and examples are actually "attacks on ideas".
Well, what I see in your posts, as per these examples above, are a lot of un based allegations about these other posts. You're trying to paint them as things they are not by calling them names such as "rants", "long winded", "attacks", "lacking proven claims".
So, this does nothing to encourage me to think any different than what I posted earlier, which was, apparently when people disagree with your viewpoint, your method is to cast aspersions on them and twist your arguments around.
Those are the very same tactics lawyers try to discredit credible witnesses with when they can't actually dispute their testimony, so that alone makes me believe I'm on the right track.