> Love is a concept. Ill defined anywhere, but you might know it when you see it. Be wary though: you might be fooled as so many others are.

You say many are mistaken about what love is, yet later say any opinion about it is, initially at least, as valid as any other. Huh?

> It is never unconditional, never universal, and personal love dies with separation and time.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be placing constraints on what love is based on how it is practiced. This doesn't make logical sense to me. When you say that love is "never unconditional," you're implying that people are incapable of practicing truly unconditional love. However, that has nothing to do with whether love, as a concept, is, or can be, unconditional.

I would argue that honest, true, pure love *is* unconditional, whether there is anybody or anything out there that is capable of practicing it. I would agree that human beings are incapable of practicing "pure" unconditional love.

On the other hand, I would further argue two more points: (1) God can and does practice "pure" unconditional love; (2) humans are capable of practicing this same type of love imperfectly but sufficiently well to warrant the use of the term for essentially all practical purposes. Therefore it is not a misuse or misunderstanding to describe the way a person loves as loving unconditionally. This is a distinctive way to contrast one type of human love with another. The constraints of humanity that make the instance of "unconditional love" imperfect are implied.

> It is misused and misunderstood. You will have your own opinion and that is as valid as any other until it is tested to destruction.
>
> Peculiarly, it is really truly only irrefutably apparent when it cannot be reciprocated. As when a parent loses a child. See those poor people in Asia.

These paragraphs completely lose me. What does it mean to test something to destruction? If you define "love" as "liking something or person a lot" is that not trivially apparent without any test or situation at all?

I would agree that this is one of multiple English definitions of the word "love," as in, "I love caramel apples." But I would reject the claim that this particular type of love may not be verified within me unless it is "tested to destruction," or the object of that love is lost. Of all the definitions of "love" in common usage today, this is the one with the least need for testing of any kind.

Trust me. I love caramel apples.