Montesian transcripts: define 'alcoholic'
I’m simply asking you to define “alcoholic.” How can you ask me to attribute to myself a given term if you refuse to define the term’s meaning? […] I cannot deny what I don’t understand. This is my position.
Context
The educated ironist's rigor deployed against the Program's vocabulary, with perfect logical validity and zero traction. The personal-injury attorney demands definitions, refuses to "attest to facts I do not possess," calls the intake "duress" — and the transcript form gives him no rebuttal, just lets his airtight logic hang in Pat's silence and self-defeat. He recurs across the snippets ("I'll gladly identify myself if you'll first simply explain what it is I'm identifying myself as"; "So this purports to be a disease, alcoholism?... I'm prescribed prayer? Does the word retrograde signify?"), and every time his validity is unanswerable and useless. The scene sides with the clichés not by arguing back but by structure: it just keeps cutting to the next resident, letting the argument that can't be refuted also fail to save anyone — the 056 "logical validity is not a guarantee of truth" thesis staged as pure juxtaposition.