Actually, if you bothered to pay attention at all, you'd notice redefining words and splitting semantic hairs have nothing to do with my arguments. It's basically just a scapegoat for the lazy and weak-minded to try (and fail) to contradict me without actually having to address anything I'm actually saying.
"Did Tanoomba expose a flaw in my logic? Better pick a word from his post and accuse him of redefining it! That's a narrative the gang will have no problem getting behind! We've pulled that scam a hundred times before, after all."
The greatest irony is when other posters attempt to redefine words (like "cause") or split semantic hairs ("I don't like how she used that word, so it's WRONG!"), they get a free pass. Basically, you make the rules up as you go along and you only enforce them when it suits your ideology. Then, when I'm not even in the middle of a discussion, you drop in to make a baseless and moronic statement just to try to keep me in my place and remind me who's boss. Sorry, Gerb, I see through your schtick like Grandma's panties. If you'd like to attempt to make a real point, at least back it up with something. The endless parade of hollow rhetoric gets really fucking boring.