You do not have to demand, as you've been doing throughout this thread, that I only use words to refer to things that you want them to mean, when I am explicitly disclaiming any intimacy with the terms as they are used in technical philosophy and making a real effort to taboo my words in order to explain what I actually mean. Read the article on Better Disagreement and try to respond to what I'm actually saying instead of trying to argue over definitions.

Hank,

If you don't use the technical jargon, it is not clear what you mean, or if you are using the same meaning every time you use a term, or whether your meaning captures what it gestures at in a meaningful, non-contradictory way.

To give a historical example, thinkers once thought they knew what infinity meant. Then different infinite sets that were "obviously" different in size were show to be the same size. But not all infinite sets were the same size. Now, we know that the former usage of infinity was confused and precise references to infinite sets need some discussion of cardinality.

In short, you can't deviate from a common jargon and also complain that people are misunderstanding you - particularly when your deviations sometimes appeal to connotations of the terms that your particular usages do not justify.

Edit: Remove comment re: editting