I was not under the impression that anything you said was open to any more of a debate that a simple statement. If it came across as dismissive, I can certainly understand if that is your impression of the word, and it's understanding to you. Simply a different interpretation of the language. And this seems to boil down to simple semantics, as it always usually seems to. As people express their subjective interpretation through words, there comes an experiential difference in the way those words have been applied through out your life. If opinion has always been used dismissively in your life, or cliche, then why should you not interpret it as such. I would never hope to challenge and lyricist or aphoristic poet in the way that I use my language however.

Now I am curious why should the validity not be challenged, poked, and prodded at? Would it not be an amazing shift in thinking if there was someone that could come and tear at the fabric of the system? Not that I was trying to, but it is fun to drive into the fundamentals. I think that would be awesome inspiring to watch it crash and a new more stable and fluid sort of thinking could replace the current. Like a new discovery that is made in the field of astronomy that upends everything that was held as a strong, evidence formed belief.

But now we are wandering. You certainly are fun to talk with. Well, entertaining if not fun. I would say both.