[card_zero]

It's fine, I got a conversation, that's all I wanted. Thank you, by the way. No, I won't modify my behavior. :)

Re: the definition, that's exactly what I said in the first place! "Often people don't make the distinction and call both things compromises", I said. I'm promoting making the distinction because I think it matters, a lot.

[saghm]

Ah, I didn't originally read what you said as promoting a distinction as much as arguing that the distinction already exists, which I think is where some of the disconnect is. Looking back at the comment that spawned all of this discussion, I think I put more weight on the initial opening that to me reads as stating the distinction as a categorical fact already than on the conclusion with the quote you mention. If I had to guess, I'd say that how carefully people will read each part of a comment is probably inversely related to how much content in the comment has come before the point where they're reading that part, so people who disagree with the first parts will weight later parts that convey more nuance less and less as they continue to read. Since you're happy with the outcome you got here though, fair enough that changing what you might say the next time isn't appealing!

The idea that there should be a semantic distinction certainly is more interesting than my original interpretation of what you said; I'd need more time to figure out whether I agree with it or not, but this type of philosophical discussion is definitely the type of thing I enjoy (and I suspect you're right that it's also something that a lot of people here would similarly be interested in discussing).