I feel like if it’s small enough that there’s no ambiguity about what you’re talking about and you can move past it, that’s the way to go.
I feel like a lot of the time though, people are using different definitions consistently specifically to evoke certain context clues in an efforts to avoid defining exactly how relevant their comment is to the issue ostensibly being presented.
So in a real-life c Toyota onversation, I’ll usually clarify what they mean first, and if it’s close enough to what we were talking about, we move on and keep talking.
Often with internet comments, I receive “no, I only mean this phrase or word, this is an equally valid definition”, that means that we aren’t even talking about the same thing and there’s no point in pursuing the matter since they’re focused on putting on a performance for dinner ulterior motive instead of making a point.
I get that.
I feel like if it’s small enough that there’s no ambiguity about what you’re talking about and you can move past it, that’s the way to go.
I feel like a lot of the time though, people are using different definitions consistently specifically to evoke certain context clues in an efforts to avoid defining exactly how relevant their comment is to the issue ostensibly being presented.
So in a real-life c Toyota onversation, I’ll usually clarify what they mean first, and if it’s close enough to what we were talking about, we move on and keep talking.
Often with internet comments, I receive “no, I only mean this phrase or word, this is an equally valid definition”, that means that we aren’t even talking about the same thing and there’s no point in pursuing the matter since they’re focused on putting on a performance for dinner ulterior motive instead of making a point.
Goalposts and all that