im sorry it doesnt make sense to you. when you said, "thats's not what usernames are" it became clear it's a linguistic issue. you are defining terms one way a

im sorry it doesnt make sense to you. when you said, "thats's not what usernames are" it became clear it's a linguistic issue. you are defining terms one way and i have defined them another way (that's fine) so that is why we cannot come to agreement on any corollary. the distinction is that you are sticking to the "formal" definitions, while i am using "functional" definitions. we agree (troll test #1) that auth factors can come in 3 flavors (for the 100th time): something you know, something you have, and something you are. according to this definition, a fingerprint goes into one bucket ("are") and a password goes into another bucket ("know"). peachy. BUT, fingerprints are also something else: GREASE. grease left on a handrail doesnt fit into any of these buckets. that doesnt mean its not a fingerprint! do you see the point? if you can appreciate that, and look at my comments through this lens, they might make sense. functionally, programmers are free to use "usernames" QUA "passwords" if they want to -- we can't just define that out of existence.