My bet is firmly on the latter, just for the record.

No non sequiturs, I gave you examples of why language matters (ESPECIALLY when dealing with law and/or government).

1) If you don't make sure people say what they mean and mean what they say you could end up putting your worst nightmare in power because you THINK you agree with him.

2) In a nation where half the Bill of Rights is effectively a dead letter, you should probably be careful to avoid even the appearance of treason.

Of course, if you're more interested in shaking your fist at The Man than actually accomplishing anything it probably doesn't matter anyway.

Then I am sorry as well.

Subversion has the connotation of treason because so many people associate them that dictionaries make note of it; intelligence agencies et alia have routinely used the term that way for decades whether you and I like it or not. Who's stating opinion as fact here again...?

I actually oppose substituting connotation for definition, and strongly, but I'm not willing to trade constructive political reform and enfranchisement for a trip to Gitmo just to carry the prescriptivist banner. It's odd how often people from left, right and center tell me they love our country in the same breath as telling me how much they hate anything to do with running it. If you really want to subvert "The System" rather than simply reform parts of it then, no, I'm afraid we aren't allies, because I still believe in things like free elections that are very much part of the system. It has merits and failings, and we should remove the latter, but we should also preserve the former, and subverting "the system" precludes the latter. It precludes most constructive action, in fact, because it results in anarchy.

Meh. Wasting time I don't have to spare here. At least the anarchists and Tea Party agree on something....