[...]
You seem to have missed my point: This is the subforum for non-technical grievances. Being the only one, it's also the most fitting. Human language is horribly imprecise, dicdefs are horribly vague, incomplete, obsolescent &, on top of that, inconsistent across publishers/versions/dates. English is not a formal language, dicdefs are descriptive, not definitive -- any logical deduction is guaranteed to end in disaster: Garbage in - garbage out. i hope we're on the same page.
Just to humor you, and 'coz i'm as neardsly, i'll address your first one:
Of course, when Obama lied, he scammed the american people. We good?
First, if you're going to bite the bullet and say obama's a scammer, you might want to know that not even republicans (or fox news) calls him a scammer. So your point falls apart right there. Second, what's wrong with using logic? If your definition can lead to absurd implications, it's not correct, period. Third, if you check all the other threads in the "scam accusations", you'll see that most of the threads are about people actually losing money/bitcoins/altcoins/merchandise. Forth, if I applied the logic of "slander" == "scam", then I can make a thread accusing Oldsport of being a "scammer" for slandering another member. Viceroy/buyer might be slandering people and using sockpuppet accounts, but that doesn't make it okay to call him something he's not.
This is getting ridiculous. This exact phrase, "Obama is a scammer," nets me: "
About 947,000 results (0.25 seconds)" on Google. If we're down to being all technical & pedantic, then at least some people don't find the notion ridiculous. As far as Fox News? Who cares?
-"
If your definition can lead to absurd implications, it's not correct, period." -- definitions don't "lead" to anything, derivations do. Learn to logic.
-"...
if you check all the other threads in the "scam accusations", you'll see that most of the threads are about people actually losing money..." -- This is exactly why we're having this back & forth, the point i'm trying to *address* in my original post. If i didn't feel that [in this instance] multiple accounts are created to defraud people ["losing money," as you put it], we wouldn't be having this discussion.
-"
if I applied the logic of "slander" == "scam", then I can make a thread accusing Oldsport of being a "scammer"" --Irrelevant to the topic at hand. Start/don't any thread you want.
Curio: I've just found out that not only is socking condoned, but shilling (bidding up one's own auctions) is also 100% legit as far as Theymos is concerned.