3 ms·

You're arguing semantics. Call it a novelty, a web app, website, or just a promotional tool. Even in the post, I say that it's a stupid, silly, and catchy pop

You're arguing semantics. Call it a novelty, a web app, website, or just a promotional tool. Even in the post, I say that it's a stupid, silly, and catchy pop culture thing. We're not trying to take on the world with ishilaryswankhot.com. Just creating a little bit of buzz, and most importantly enjoying ourselves. Mark enjoyed coding the app. I'm enjoying doing some of the promoting (we just had film.com write it up). You can't put a "per hour" price on that enjoyment. For the love of the game fellas, never forget that.

jamesbritt 18y ago
"You're arguing semantics." Not really. It helps a discussion of people have a common understanding of terms.
- kragen 18y ago
  What do you think "semantics" means?
  - derefr 18y ago
    If the grandparent post is an adequate definition of "semantics," then I, personally, see no reason not to make an argument based upon it. What's wrong with "arguing semantics" such that it's become a derogatory phrase? I mean, it's nothing to base a logical or moral or legal argument upon, but it's interesting in its own right on an philosophical level (similar to how "grammar nazi-ism" is interesting to linguists.) Taking it a bit further, this phrase, and many others like it, belie the difference between a traditional chronological conversation, and the multithreaded conversation possible on the web. When you can branch off in different directions at the same time, without losing focus on any individual branch, there's no longer a reason to keep "on message" or "to the argument at hand"--both statements on- and off-topic can be expressed with equal exposure, and without anyone being distracted from one by the other.
  - jamesbritt 18y ago
    Point taken. What I got from the post over all was the suggestion that the poster was merely arguing semantics, as if insisting on precise use of words was not important, or that it's OK to knowingly misuse words in the service of some vague higher motive.

jamesbritt 18y ago

"You're arguing semantics." Not really. It helps a discussion of people have a common understanding of terms.

kragen 18y ago
What do you think "semantics" means?
- derefr 18y ago
  If the grandparent post is an adequate definition of "semantics," then I, personally, see no reason not to make an argument based upon it. What's wrong with "arguing semantics" such that it's become a derogatory phrase? I mean, it's nothing to base a logical or moral or legal argument upon, but it's interesting in its own right on an philosophical level (similar to how "grammar nazi-ism" is interesting to linguists.) Taking it a bit further, this phrase, and many others like it, belie the difference between a traditional chronological conversation, and the multithreaded conversation possible on the web. When you can branch off in different directions at the same time, without losing focus on any individual branch, there's no longer a reason to keep "on message" or "to the argument at hand"--both statements on- and off-topic can be expressed with equal exposure, and without anyone being distracted from one by the other.
- jamesbritt 18y ago
  Point taken. What I got from the post over all was the suggestion that the poster was merely arguing semantics, as if insisting on precise use of words was not important, or that it's OK to knowingly misuse words in the service of some vague higher motive.