Party 'B' (the instigator) has accosted party 'A', over activities which it deams are a greivous violation of its personal charter, (however unfounded the allegations may be)leaving party 'A' a verbal and/or written warning to cease and desist from their current activities. Party 'A' however, does not feel that the activities they have engaged in, in any fashion have breached the ground rules laid out by party 'B' and is extremely offended by such action being taken. Party 'B' has served warning of their terms in a rather pejorative sense (hence their label; instigator) leaving party 'B' the hostile and aggressor of the two parties involved in this type of situation;
Party 'A' has 3 particular options available to them in this situation. The could immediately comply with the order to cease and desist, thus allowing for any guilt of the accusations made by party 'B' to be automatically assumed, and directed at party 'A' regardless of any defence made by party 'A', or the due course of any type of tribunal, or court system to either clear them of the false accusations made, or to prove without any reasonable doubt that party 'A' is in fact, guilty of any of the accusations levied against them.
The second option would involve Party 'A' launching a full on assault against Party 'B'. This could be done by either clearly labelling a defensive action at Party 'B', or by Party 'A' retaliating against Party 'B' in a similarly aggressive and hostile fashion, would reveal the weaknesses in the arguments and accusations being launched by both sides involved in the matter. The winner of the ensuing scuffle, would essentially be announced the victor of the quarrel, and the other party involved would immediately be forced to cease and desist, or continue operation, but with shame.
Thirdly, Party 'A' would be able to lay bait. Wait, and in the event of trapping Party 'B' with this guileful maneuver be assured that it is them which Party 'B' has lobbed their attack at, and launch a relenteless assault upon Party 'B' punishing them for complete and utter ignorance. The attack could involve a number of tactical maneuvers, such as the employment of certain fallacies, baited logic, loaded questions, and the backhanded false presumptions to lead Party 'B' into a trap from which it could not recover, allowing Party 'A' to continue to operate in the manner previously specified.
....The transposition of textbook knowledge does not indicate that in fact, the reader possesses any sort of understanding of the fundamental principles laid out by the original author, and the conclusion which the original author was able to draw from these principles. All it is able to show the third reader is; the original work of the author, and the fact that the secondary reader has been able to properly spell the words in exact order, just like the original author.....
