Pypy most commonly refers to the python implementation anyway, as can be easily seen by going to the pypy website[1]. Daslch abused the fact that "pypy" points

Pypy most commonly refers to the python implementation anyway, as can be easily seen by going to the pypy website[1]. Daslch abused the fact that "pypy" points to two things to make a meaningless nitpick. Now you are claiming that I have claimed that fork and use are semantically congruent, where do I claim that? I think you are nitpicking and parsing "it" wrong. In either case a question asking for clarification would be more polite than going on attack. There seems to be a disease, let's call it Eric Raymond Disease (ERD), on HN in particular[2] of people busting in rudely to declare with supreme confidence on the usage of quite generic words and/or slang. Let's start by tabling the fact that a particular "software definition" of "fork" has not yet reached the OED, or online dictionaries like Merriam-Webster for that matter. Going from that I can't see how you can declare it to only have one definition when you already admit there is a competing one ("GitHub parlance"). The base concept of the word fork is a divergence, a branch, which seems to me to cover any copy+modify move for software so someone copy+modifying bootstrap is forking it, someone copy+modifying the implementation of python called pypy is forking it. Are you and Daslch really contributing to HN or are you taking a rather banal comment and turned it into a 100% useless thread by bickering over semantics? [1]http://pypy.org/ http://pypy.org/ [2]http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3467035 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3467035