I would not dispute that point; I'm uncertain how to apply it, though. • • • It's complicated. As near as I can tell we probably should have mentioned something years ago, except it wasn't at the time evident that we were not at least intending to honor some aspect of the description, so nobody necessarily knew to say anything about it. It happened to come up↗, recently↗; not that anyone is particularly certain of the implications. Like Sculptor's point. I really don't intend to dispute it. But it turns out the implications aren't necessarily important to some. The atheist, for instance, says there is no God; the ahistorian might remind that the historical record is a misrepresentation by convention: "History is a lie agreed upon", is the formulation I know, attributed to Napoleon and presented as a prefatory quote in a history textbook once upon a time. And that's well and fine, but in one case the argument against will wallow in whatever bullshit an advocate comes up with; even those who purport recognize history as a lie agreed upon, however, reject lies they can witness in real time. That is to say, even the ahistorian will make the point that something is ahistorical. What happens if job security, at least in a more existential context of justifying an endeavor, requires that we honor whatever we happen to know is made up in the moment? Please consider, for instance: The Inquisitor justifies mortal judgment, torture, and homicide, according to authority that is, in fact, God's. These years later, Christianists still haven't learned this basic lesson, and like anyone else, they certainly have motivation to ignore what would constrain them from their desire. While it is for instance true that I do not see what good comes from arguing with a fanatic about whether or not God exists, it is also true that results vary when Christianists assert biblical justification for behavior in violation of their Christian identity. That is to say, if we're going to fight about what any of us owe that Christian over there, the one thing that Christian owes us is some honesty. But for people who don't actually care about any of that, sure, this is the one time to let the delusional or delerious tell us what something is, and particularly so one can enjoy telling them how wrong and stupid and awful they are, because that's the point, and nobody who behaves that way ought to try to hide behind any other motive. It is an interesting coincidence when people will allow their perceived opposition to wrongly identify and describe something the one hates disdains or criticizes; it just seems rather convenient. And it also means one need not know a goddamn thing about what they're criticizing when they answer. That is to say, people can compare masturbation techniques all they want, but if they tell me it's rehearsal for the Easter pageant so don't try to oppress their fucking Christianity, then, yeah, I'm calling bullshit, and, no, I'm not wasting time arguing whether or not Yahweh Smegmaoth—the God Of Wanking—exists. That last joke is sexist, by the way.