You did? Maybe you can explain it to me, because I rather thought it was a pure semantic game. Saying that "material" is no longer considered relevant was just

You did? Maybe you can explain it to me, because I rather thought it was a pure semantic game. Saying that "material" is no longer considered relevant was just a typical intellectual game of stripping words from their usual definitions. (I also despise his continual use of the rhetoric device during his lecture of claiming that a particular philosophical debate has been settled and the "evident" correct answer is his own position on the subject. He keeps using that turn of phrase where his opinion is presented as the only tenable one by an intelligent thinker. He always does that. I think it's a weak trick so silence critics.)