Normally, I abstain from posting to threads on which I have received my aikiweb moderation spanking... however not today.

I thought clarified myself with control and manipulation as a means to an end (nurture). Not that controlling and manipulation are the definition of nurturing. I also gave you a hint at the intention of such control, by saying the child doesn't need to be aware it is happening. Does that context indicate to you aggression? Simply the fact of talking about control in the children context vs. the martial context should have conveyed the intent. While there are parents out there that don't abide an instinctual connection of love and bonding with their own children, maybe I could have been given the benefit of the doubt as to my (normal) intentions towards my own children.

But you choose to parse language much like a computer, needing things spelled out explicitly. One of the pleasures of conversing with humans vs. instructing computers is you DON'T have to spell things out, or shouldn't have to. One can marvel at all the multiple definitions of various words and how we understand one another (and indeed it is amazing - as any computer scientist researching natural language parsing might tell you), however it is in our nature to use the context of a word to pair down the possible meanings into an understanding, again, within the context.

And when that dialog devolves into quibbling about the definition of "my" and what it means in different context, that speaks volumes in and of itself.

Which gets back to my assertion above, you seem to need things explicitly spelled out, and here you offer your schema how a conversation works. What an unnecessarily tedious method of communication, especially in an informal setting such as this.