And by 'message' you imply that there's some information you want to pass to me about Babylon?

Is this post vague or precise?

In what way is it a precise response? Like for example how have you presented the connection between your response and my post?

1. @Muriel's assertion on 'vagueness' is thus out of context. Firstly, because it wasn't the subject of 'brother's' assertion. On the contrary, 'meaning' implies comprehension, precision and clarity. Otherwise if the subject was 'vagueness' 'brother' would have stated it. 2. I had to ask for the connection for me to see it, otherwise there was room for speculation left by your post, in relation to other posts. 3. Agreeing or disagreement is a matter of 'fit', and only this measure can prove 'receipt'. Otherwise even indifference can claim receipt, and indifference can't be part of communication. 4. Your assertion on 'vagueness' shows some ignorance on its usefulness even in language. Symbols are generally vague until when used in a specific context and intention. That's how a language becomes useful in all situations. Vagueness doesn't necessarily destroy language. Mostly, it nurtures development of language. 5. I can't say I have agreed or disagreed with the new idea you were trying to pass to me, even after using the book of Mark as an illustration. At most, I take it that you've described how conflict in communication arises- something that has happened in our posts, and in all forms of communication. How the conflict is resolved you don't seem to know, because a 'receipt' doesn't imply reconciliation or understanding.

If your idea has been dismissed and patronized, and shown to be inferior, and also receipted, then it has been so 'handled' by someone else, not @tycho. Vagueness on the other hand, has been useful to you, in a negative way, because most of your assertions can be shown to be vague. You can't show this vagueness to what 'tycho' is saying. As for 'ostentation' I can only speculate on it's precision.