[lucideer]

I wish you'd retract your EDIT3 as I think you really were right the first time. This is definitely an issue of dishonest framing.

Having your own definition of something that differs to some central authorities' definition is not only fine, but something I'd positively encourage.

But when you then go and use that different definition to categorise your product more favourably, and you flagrantly advertise your product using that categorisation, without referencing the fact you're using a non-mainstream definition, that IS dishonest.

[nsajko]

"Dishonest" was probably the wrong choice of word, from at least a tactical perspective. I guess many people here disagreed with my comment here because they operated with a slightly narrower "definition" of dishonesty. I guess maybe you could have worded that better than me while still using the word "dishonest"; but if I could go back in time to when I wrote the first comment, I would use "deceitful" or "deceptive" (in regard to both the entire blog post and just its title) - that should have gotten my point across with less friction.