[roel_v]

The problem is in your petulant interpretation of the word 'make'. As I mentioned, it's just a definition matter from here on. For some words the distinction between 'make' and 'process' is much less clear; I don't have an opinion on what the consensus is on whether flour is 'made' by humans or not, if the discussion had started out with this example, I wouldn't even have bothered replying.

Language is fluid and loosely-defined. It's not because the dominant interpretation is that honey comes from bees, that there needs to be a 1:1 relationship between other source materials and their end product so that the same word 'make' can be applied to those processes. Your demand for an explanation into the difference is therefore meaningless; there is an inherent vagueness in the word. Not everything is so defined that it can be explained in the way you apparently want is.

For example, I mentioned that honey is only mechanically processed from the hive into the pot. Does that mean that all processes where only filtering occurs do not constitute 'making'? No. Does it mean the inverse? No. In the flour example, one could make the case (I'm not doing so, I'm just explaining the mechanism) that the conversion from wheat into flour is purely mechanical and therefore does not constitute 'making'. But I don't find it a convincing argument. It just shows that each circumstance needs to be examined from several angles, and that (as I mentioned several times) there is no single definition.

(I had a paragraph here on the 'opinions' part of your argument but it was too vitriolic - objectively, I can't tell from your post if you meant it as I interpreted it; so I'm going to suffice with saying that this is not about 'opinions'. It's a about definitions, which are not opinions).