No, what you'd do is post, but cower from substantive engagement by trying to change the subject, like you just did. But there's no reason to be this frightened. Besides, you'll never get better at thinking unless you practice.
Half of it is right here, in this thread. I provided a detailed definition and illustrated how the established facts fit the definition. You, on the other hand, are too scared to engage, so you refuse to provide a serious definition that we could look at to see whether collusion occurred. Instead, you'd like to hide behind childish taunts.
You lost track of the thread, pumpkin. I didn't bring it up. Arminius did, in the very first post, where Arminius was pushing the mindless right-wing talking point about Trump-Russia collusion claims being "likely false" (when, using any normal definition of "collusion," the fact the Russians and top people in the Trump campaign colluded has been very firmly established).