5 ms·

You are welcome to ignore half of the definitions you posted and focus on the one that suits you best. I lean towards the second one you supplied, being "Import

You are welcome to ignore half of the definitions you posted and focus on the one that suits you best. I lean towards the second one you supplied, being "Important, salient" We can disagree on semantics, but my original point stands: the wording of the headline was changed. As another poster has asked, why would you choose to change a shorter, more common word for a longer, less common one if they mean exactly the same?

dogorman 5y ago
> "Important, salient" A keystone is that. Keystones are key, take the keystone out of an arch and the arch collapses. Doesn't that make a keystone "important, salient"? I think it does. Both of those definitions support these words being synonyms. I quoted both definitions because I believe both support my point. (And I quoted both for 'keystone' because if I didn't, I figured you'd disingenuously attribute that omission to malfeasance.) > As another poster has asked, why would you choose to change a shorter, more common word for a longer, less common one if they mean exactly the same? My response to him applies to you as well. You would not be nitpicking such word choices if you were not looking for a crack to gain leverage in the conversation.
- cookie_monsta 5y ago
  All that would be relevant if I were positing that key > keystone, but it's obviously the opposite so I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that a keystone is important. I'm not looking for a crack here and the "nitpicking" was a convenient example of how both sides are skewing reality to suit their ends. Anyway, I notice that the title has now been changed to reflect the original headline so I guess somebody else thought they were different enough words to warrant changing it back again.
  - dogorman 5y ago
    > I guess somebody else thought they were different enough words to warrant changing it back again. Or dang thought to cut this fruitless tangent off at the knees. I am perfectly happy with the new headline, because it means the same thing as the old. If I were dang I'd change it too, for that reason. The new headline is still a damning indictment of US media.
    - cookie_monsta 5y ago
      > The new headline is still a damning indictment of US media. It might be if it actually mentioned the US... or is that bit implied?
- long_time_gone 5y ago
  ==You would not be nitpicking such word choices if you were not looking for a crack to gain leverage in the conversation.== You would not be defending title manipulation if you were not trying to defend your own perceived leverage.
  - dogorman 5y ago
    The new headline is perfectly acceptable and means the same thing as the old. This has been my position in this conversation since the start.
    - long_time_gone 5y ago
      ==and means the same thing as the old.== Multiple people are telling you that it means something different in their experience. Personally, I have 3 keys to my house, but my house has only 1 keystone. Why would you replace a 3-letter word with an 8-letter word that means the same thing? Especially when you have to type the entire word "key" to get to "keystone".
k1m 5y ago
> why would you choose to change a shorter, more common word for a longer, less common one if they mean exactly the same? I'm not the OP, but you're assuming this was copied and pasted and the word changed deliberately. I can think of a number of reasons why the different word was used, that has nothing to do with an attempt to mislead: e.g. autocorrect if typing it on mobile, genuine error (thinking it was actually 'keystone' in the original).
- dogorman 5y ago
  Journalists and editors swap out words all the time, particularly when they aren't explicitly quoting somebody. People who write for a living tend to like words and pick words form sets of synonyms that suit their personal preferences. Any story that has been written about by more than one writer/editor will almost certainly have headlines that mean the same thing using different words. A current example grabbed from google news: "Two dams in Inner Mongolia collapse after heavy rain" "Two dams in China's Inner Mongolia collapse after torrential rain" "Heavy rain" and "torrential rain" mean basically the same thing. Why does one headline use one phrase, and the other another? Is this some sort of malicious attempt to propagandize at us? Or is it just an editor/writer who fancies the word 'torrential'? I think it's the second.
  - k1m 5y ago
    Yes, I should have added that I see nothing wrong with the replacement of key with keystone here. Not sure what the big issue is. I was just surprised that someone who does object to it assumes a HN posting has been deliberately crafted to mislead when it could simply have been an innocent error.
BitwiseFool 5y ago
I hate to say it, but Language is a theater of war in the modern world. English has a large and loose lexicon that gives manipulators plenty of room to make insinuations while still being technically correct.

dogorman 5y ago

> "Important, salient" A keystone is that. Keystones are key, take the keystone out of an arch and the arch collapses. Doesn't that make a keystone "important, salient"? I think it does. Both of those definitions support these words being synonyms. I quoted both definitions because I believe both support my point. (And I quoted both for 'keystone' because if I didn't, I figured you'd disingenuously attribute that omission to malfeasance.) > As another poster has asked, why would you choose to change a shorter, more common word for a longer, less common one if they mean exactly the same? My response to him applies to you as well. You would not be nitpicking such word choices if you were not looking for a crack to gain leverage in the conversation.

cookie_monsta 5y ago
All that would be relevant if I were positing that key > keystone, but it's obviously the opposite so I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that a keystone is important. I'm not looking for a crack here and the "nitpicking" was a convenient example of how both sides are skewing reality to suit their ends. Anyway, I notice that the title has now been changed to reflect the original headline so I guess somebody else thought they were different enough words to warrant changing it back again.
- dogorman 5y ago
  > I guess somebody else thought they were different enough words to warrant changing it back again. Or dang thought to cut this fruitless tangent off at the knees. I am perfectly happy with the new headline, because it means the same thing as the old. If I were dang I'd change it too, for that reason. The new headline is still a damning indictment of US media.
  - cookie_monsta 5y ago
    > The new headline is still a damning indictment of US media. It might be if it actually mentioned the US... or is that bit implied?
long_time_gone 5y ago
==You would not be nitpicking such word choices if you were not looking for a crack to gain leverage in the conversation.== You would not be defending title manipulation if you were not trying to defend your own perceived leverage.
- dogorman 5y ago
  The new headline is perfectly acceptable and means the same thing as the old. This has been my position in this conversation since the start.
  - long_time_gone 5y ago
    ==and means the same thing as the old.== Multiple people are telling you that it means something different in their experience. Personally, I have 3 keys to my house, but my house has only 1 keystone. Why would you replace a 3-letter word with an 8-letter word that means the same thing? Especially when you have to type the entire word "key" to get to "keystone".

k1m 5y ago

> why would you choose to change a shorter, more common word for a longer, less common one if they mean exactly the same? I'm not the OP, but you're assuming this was copied and pasted and the word changed deliberately. I can think of a number of reasons why the different word was used, that has nothing to do with an attempt to mislead: e.g. autocorrect if typing it on mobile, genuine error (thinking it was actually 'keystone' in the original).

dogorman 5y ago
Journalists and editors swap out words all the time, particularly when they aren't explicitly quoting somebody. People who write for a living tend to like words and pick words form sets of synonyms that suit their personal preferences. Any story that has been written about by more than one writer/editor will almost certainly have headlines that mean the same thing using different words. A current example grabbed from google news: "Two dams in Inner Mongolia collapse after heavy rain" "Two dams in China's Inner Mongolia collapse after torrential rain" "Heavy rain" and "torrential rain" mean basically the same thing. Why does one headline use one phrase, and the other another? Is this some sort of malicious attempt to propagandize at us? Or is it just an editor/writer who fancies the word 'torrential'? I think it's the second.
- k1m 5y ago
  Yes, I should have added that I see nothing wrong with the replacement of key with keystone here. Not sure what the big issue is. I was just surprised that someone who does object to it assumes a HN posting has been deliberately crafted to mislead when it could simply have been an innocent error.

BitwiseFool 5y ago

I hate to say it, but Language is a theater of war in the modern world. English has a large and loose lexicon that gives manipulators plenty of room to make insinuations while still being technically correct.