12/8    Arguments based on word defition.
        So; just wondering but I wonder if alot of arguments are based on
        1. what we historically viewed as consensus of the term's def
        2. what new media defines as the term.
        for example, the petite vs. wikipedia petite.  Which is more valid?
        a definition that someone , and their immediate culture, has used
        a term all their life or something a culture defines as valid
        no matter how young?
        \_ Yeah I've heard the term "anecdotal evidence is invalid" alot
           out of the UCB student pop lately; they seem to prefer
           internet definitions.
           \_ By that nature, those definitions can change at the flip of
              a bit or wiki change/revert.
              \_ "We have always been at war with east^weurasia."
        \_ We can't have different ideas about the same word, that would
           bring anarchy!
           \_ nevertheless different people use the same word for different
              things, and the problem is when it's used for slightly similar
              definitions.  If you kill that you are killing diversity.
        \_ Is this a real discussion or one that someone added in its entirety?
        \_ Bill Clinton should be an expert on this subject.
        \-   "Testimony is like an arrow shot from a long bow,
             the force  of it depends  on the strength  of the
             hand  that draws  it. Argument  is like  an arrow
             from  a cross-bow, which  has equal  force though
             drawn by a child."