[dhoe]

Did you read the first sentence of the Wikipedia article? It contrasts cursive with block letters.

Anyway, you're of course free to call block letters cursive. It's not the traditional meaning, and it's interesting to observe that people don't even know that anymore.

[xpe]

First, I refer you to https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> Please don't comment on whether someone read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that".

Second, please recognize that my comment was based on what you wrote above: "It's just not cursive." But it seems my point didn't get across.

[dhoe]

No, your point came across. You think every sort of handwriting is cursive, and I don't think I can help you with that :)

[xpe]

> No, your point came across. You think every sort of handwriting is cursive, and I don't think I can help you with that :)

No, that was not my point.

I'll try it a different way with two questions and a comment: what is the point of arguing definitions? What does it get you? If your point is communication and persuasion, pointing to a definition and asserting that it settles the issue isn't a great strategy.

And by the way, it is incorrect to claim I something like a complete relativist regarding definitions; I am not saying anything goes. For example, I said above that internal consistency matters.) Very important is a particular focusing goal other citing authority (such as effective communication) which involves 2+ parties.

[xpe]

Typo fixes: "And by the way, it is incorrect to claim I'm something like a complete relativist regarding definitions; I'm not saying anything goes. For example, I said above that internal consistency matters. It is important to have a particular focusing goal other than promoting one definition over another. For example, if your goal is effective communication you probably won't be tempted to say things like "It's just not cursive."