Definition

[_honorentheos]

Pretty sure that "the point" was glaring in the opening post via a basic question...ya know, that question you have since avoided....was the question confusing you?

If the point was to demonstrate you didn't know the differences between the terms, then yes. It was made glaringly obvious by the basic question you asked. That you continue on making the discussion about your insistence that the two words are exactly synonymous in order to support your buying in to the spygate conspiracy in an attempt to make the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election into the equivalent of Nixon's Watergate spying on the Democrat party is not confusing so much as laughable.

[_canpakes]

Still don’t have a point in all this, do you?

Pretty sure that "the point" was glaring in the OP via a basic question...ya know, that question you have since avoided....was the question confusing you?

I’ve already demonstrated the uselessness of the question because you have no valid followup point to make by merely asking it.

I can show you a hundred differences between two forks, or we can pretend that a sedan and an elephant are the same thing, because they both have a trunk. You’ve obviously worded the question (or more correctly, repeated it from a stooge on Fox) because you think that there’s a point that can be pulled out of the mess. Either find your huevos and state your actual argument and let it be debated, or not. No sense hiding behind weaselspeak, right?

[_subgenius]

I’ve already demonstrated the uselessness of the question because you have no valid followup point to make by merely asking it.

I can show you a hundred differences between two forks, or we can pretend that a sedan and an elephant are the same thing, because they both have a trunk. You’ve obviously worded the question (or more correctly, repeated it from a stooge on Fox) because you think that there’s a point that can be pulled out of the mess. Either find your huevos and state your actual argument and let it be debated, or not. No sense hiding behind weaselspeak, right?

Notwithstanding your presumptions, but note that refusing to answer a question because of some conspiracy theory you have in mind seems a bit odd. And note that "follow-up" seems to require something to follow - a.k.a. an answer to the question.
But I get ya, as you state here - you want an argument.

[_canpakes]

No, I want you to move beyond weak comparisons structured for partisan purposes to tell me what the issue would be with the ‘spy or confidential informant’ debate.

It doesn’t appear that you have much going on here besides repeating crappy and bogus Fox talking points. Does that network allow you to draw on your own intellect when discussing the situation?

[_subgenius]

No, I want you to move beyond weak comparisons structured for partisan purposes to tell me what the issue would be with the ‘spy or confidential informant’ debate.

It doesn’t appear that you have much going on here besides repeating crappy and bogus Fox talking points. Does that network allow you to draw on your own intellect when discussing the situation?

Naw, i am much simpler than that...see i have clearly stated that i believe both to be basically the same in function, but different in application. But more to the context that you have introduced, the larger point being - "what difference does it really make?"...I mean, why would the FBI be in such a "hit dawg hollers" posture if it was just a silly point of semantics?
Or
if there is a distinct moral, political, or legal consequence to any distinction between these 2 terms then please offer such consequence by way of a response to the OP question...but that just won't do, will it?

[_canpakes]

if there is a distinct moral, political, or legal consequence to any distinction between these 2 terms then please offer such consequence by way of a response to the OP question...but that just won't do, will it?

Any “distinct moral, political, or legal consequence” relies on the action, not the term. Matters not what term you are deciding, for political gain, to choose. Pick either term, or any other (why limit yourself to two, right?) and tell me how it changes the conclusion on how appropriate, or not, whatever happened was.

That’s why the sheep love to repeat the talking points seen in the OP or otherwise provided to them by their media idols on Fox. They don’t need or care to consider the depths of any question if they can just circle-jerk each other’s blind and partisan confirmation bias.

[_subgenius]

Any “distinct moral, political, or legal consequence” relies on the action, not the term. Matters not what term you are deciding, for political gain, to choose. Pick either term, or any other (why limit yourself to two, right?) and tell me how it changes the conclusion on how appropriate, or not, whatever happened was.

Perhaps, as I defined the terms, the conclusion would be changed based solely on jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the FBI seems to believe that there is an important distinction between the 2 terms, especially inasmuch as the terms are put into "action".

That’s why the sheep love to repeat the talking points seen in the OP or otherwise provided to them by their media idols on Fox. They don’t need or care to consider the depths of any question if they can just circle-jerk each other’s blind and partisan confirmation bias.

The partisan position(s) were not brought forth by the OP and to date have been residents of your posts not mine. I simply asked a simple question...the presuppositions are all your own...so own them.
As to the "depth", that has been made abundantly clear yet you seem to only be capable of dipping your toe in...perhaps the pool is too dark and too cold for your temperament?

[_canpakes]

I don’t see that you’ve provided a pool for anyone to dip their toes in. I don’t think that the OP provides any more ‘depth’ than one would find in the water left behind after swabbing a counter with a dirty wet-nap.

subs, I’m pretty sure that you know how to use a dictionary. You can look up the difference between the two terms. And you can pretend that context doesn’t matter. But it is obvious that you know that context and word choice matters because you were unable to further explore your own OP given my earlier posts 16 and 18 in this thread.

If you aren’t willing to honestly explore your own OP because you know that the argument you’re hinting at is faulty and shallow, then what could you possibly be expecting from anyone else?

[_honorentheos]

subbie's contention rests not just on a definitional problem but on intent. The entire spygate conspiracy is a fever dream of the conservative mind that believes the Evil Obama Empire sent someone into the Virtuous, God-loving Trump campaign because it was the opposition to the Crooked Hillary campaign. And they, these wicked collaborating forces of Satan, were willing to use the powers of the executive to damage their political opponent. God forbid that the FBI was legitimately looking into Russian activity that took them to the Trump campaign because that would be reasonable. We all know how well subbie deals with reasonable.