You heard it, folks!
Nothing you say can ever top this one so why bother to try?
This is my shocked face that Mr. Semantics is discussing Latin root words rather than current definitions.
That’s where definitions are derived.
You don’t like true statements?
I’m simply saying that the term “conspiracy” is an overly hyped word because if you and I went for a cup of coffee this afternoon, technically, that’s a conspiracy to drink coffee, by definition. What’s your beef?
Airplanes flying high, over his head.
After this debacle GSC is never allowed to call anyone out for semantics ever again. 
My overall point isn’t semantical. The argument I was pulled in to defend is.
Incorrect. Definitions are from the Dictionaries. You already stated you don’t believe in Dictionaries or definitions, but in etymologies in which you, personally, derived their current meaning. Yes, like most other things, the Dunning Kruger narcissism that embodies who you are puts your personal interpretations above definitions in your mind, just like you think you’re more intelligent than people like Copernicus or Galileo.
“The problem with the world is that the intelligent people are full of doubts, while the stupid ones are full of confidence.”
― Charles Bukowski
That was determined a long time ago.
This is how incredibly foolish you are.
All words in modern language are derived from former, older words of antiquity.
There wasn’t Miriam Webster and Brittanica running around 1000 or more years ago setting definitions and imposing nomenclature on a populace or culture you dunce.
Can a modern word’s meaning progress or change a bit? Yea, it can. But it ALWAYS retains its etymology. It will ALWAYS be tied to its historical roots and the deviation is minimal.
For instance, the word conspiracy will always be plural. It will never have a meaning for one person…. Why? Because one of its root words is “con” which means “together”.
We can debate whether the word in its modern form exclusively means “illegal” or “evil” or “fill in the blank malevolent” term…. It doesn’t really matter.
A great example of this is the word notorious. It literally means “known” in Latin. But in modern dictionaries it’s defined as having a negative connotation…. Known for something wrong or evil…. But I can say “bikki is notorious for writing in long form” and everyone here would know my meaning perfectly.
So I say to you sir…. Try again.
Con actually has a few differing meanings, with “together” being one, of course. But generally they are formed negatively and not positively.
Why wouldnt conspiracy derive from the word conspire first? Then break down the root meaning. It seems to me that to conspire is generally applied in the negative (both con and spirare are associated negatively here).
Also, please show us a written example of an author from antiquity until now that has used conspire in the positive. Please cite the material so we can reference. Thx
What did you say to me one time? “Do your own fucking research”
Anyway- IN THIS CONTEXT CON MEANS “WITH.”
Unless you’re going to tell us 2 people aren’t required to conspire together.
We can conspire to elope right?
We can conspire to throw our friend a birthday party.
Again- THIS IS BECAUSE ITS ETYMOLOGY IS NEUTRAL.
Try doing the same thing with the word root “mal”
That’s what I thought, nothing to back up your claims as per usual. I tell you to DYOR because you are the one making fantastical claims that you either never back up or use GWP as the authority of knowledge.
I did right above you imbecile.
And your examples are off too
Eloping already infers a tacit agreement
You either throw a bday party with your friends knowledge or throw them a surprise party. If you conspire you throw them a party after they told you not to.
I’m not sure what you’re asking for a source for to be honest.
I’m not even sure why you’re appealing to authority instead of just rebutting the argument.
It’s there 
Have at it buddy.
You tried to tell us that con means to negate in this context. You’re done.