Today, 08:13 AM
I did read it, and it was still incomplete, which is why I placed the question where I did.
Your words, not mine, which is why I wrote what I wrote. The greater context, the more relevant, is that of ownership, which you have equated with use. I am sure you probably did not mean to do it, but that is the semantic result your sentence construction produced, which is one reason I pointed out that you have some additional work ahead of you. I'm not trying to beat you up, but am pointing out that there are men in the world who'd have you hanging by the berries in no time for all their wickedly clever ways of subverting language. Do you think you can go causally head to head with the likes of a Hillary Clinton or Harry Reid? They may be evil as all get-out, but they are not amateur punks where linguistic subversion is concerned. THOSE are the sorts of men against whom I warn you and all others. ANY weakness in your linguistic constructs will be used as a toehold into which they will drive wedges, eventually taking down your walls. We are on the same side here, methinks, and I am trying to help you, not hinder... as if I had nothing better to do with my time.
Write more carefully next time. :)