People who study 'Linguistics' can aim to use language precisely, but then they will be communicating to others, most of who don't have such control, finesse and ambition. Ultimately assumptions are being made by both parties that certain meanings are implied, individual reference points of view are true, recorded history (according to whatever country/records) are completely unbiased and objective in its reporting ie 'fact'.
Well, one can see by watching so called news today that 'truth' and 'current history in the making' is often biased,
and years from now todays news will be recorded as 'fact'.
Dreamingod, this is a great example that makes my point (note also that you rarely give examples to elucidate your point -- because in attempting to do so you might discover how wrong you are. And then you would have to start working harder... ohhhh noooooo.....).
If those who lack linguistic discipline are unable to know truth that is just an unfortunate reality. I for one will not indulge them.
Recorded history is not always unreliable. We can be pretty sure that Alexander the Great really did conquer Egypt.
Hitler really did invade Poland.
get a grip.
As far as assumptions being made?... speak for yourself.
", recorded history (according to whatever country/records) are completely unbiased and objective in its reporting ie 'fact'."
There is the deceiver's trick... reply to something no one said.
No one claimed reporting is unbiased. Bias is irrelevant at this point.
You can say that Nazi journalists were biased on their reporting of the invasion... but, So what? That is not relevant at this point.
Here you are just attempting to cloud your error with obfuscation.