[lightbendover]

I don't see how you can throw away the modern definition of DRY and put critiques of it (the modern definition) to bed just by pointing out the historical origination. They're completely different topics and the discussions thus need to be insular.

[Jtsummers]

They can't be meaningfully separated because they're using the same phrase with almost, but not exactly, the same meaning. One version having a sanity check (don't repeat the actual same logic/information, at least not excessively; usually it's paired with the "Rule of Three" which is three repetitions then look for a refactor) and the other not (don't repeat anything that happens to look alike and don't actually think, follow this rule like it's written in stone). If these aren't distinguished, then you end up with everyone talking past each other both thinking the other is an idiot (rightly from both perspectives).

People arguing against the latter are making a sane and reasonable argument. And people arguing for the former are making a sane and reasonable argument. But if, in the same discussion, both senses are meant without qualification or clarification then only confusion will be found.

[BeetleB]

Then start your critique of DRY by pointing out there are multiple definitions of it, and that you are referring to one definition.