> The article just shows that if you insist on an absurdly strict definition you end up with nonsense. I've sometimes caricatured this kind of argument as:

> The article just shows that if you insist on an absurdly strict definition you end up with nonsense. I've sometimes caricatured this kind of argument as: 1. "Blue" is Pantone™ 292. 2. The sky is not Pantone™ 292. 3. Therefore, the sky is not blue.