Exactly how redefining what most people take to mean free will and changing the definition of it is poor wording?
I will agree that "poor wording" was just my opinion and you are free to simply ignore it.
And I do ignore it. Not it of spite, but because it fails to hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.
I disagree. And I see no point in continuing to argue about it. We simply do not agree on how "most people define free will".
> it fails to hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.
You are apparently ignorant of the extensive literature on free will and cognitive science in which the view I am defending does hold up to intense rigor and scrutiny.
Anything that can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.