Answer me this.

[Occhidiangela]

A sematics issue is just a failure to communicate.

A good conversation is an exchange of ideas.

Its foolish to disagree over sematics, once the incongruity is understood by both sides the converstion should continue. If you simply want to argue over which definition is correct you have totaly changed the topic of a discussion(many netzens are oblivious to this.)

Now on a totaly seperate issue you could reasonably dislike a person because they refused to use conbentional definitions, but the problem there is no the actually definitions but the choice to use them.
[right][snapback]104390[/snapback][/right]

Once we agree on definitions, or that we are talking about the same thing, the exchange of ideas flows better than if we are using words in a different, or incorrect, sense. Words are an idea encoded and decoded. It is important for the encoding and decoding to have a high fidelity, or the message degrades. Thus, sometimes getting into semantics, to make sure we both understand the intended meaning, advances a conversation, while other times arguing about semantics detracts from it, as you note.

I think we agree one that. :whistling:

Occhi