re: #122 Prononymous, rogue demon hunter

He should have simply used different terminology that people wouldn’t try to dispute.

That’s correct.

But your original point wasn’t just that he didn’t use what you thought was proper terminology, but also that the point of the article was refuted because of that.

I don’t think so. It just means that I won’t take the article so seriously. I’m still not sure what point the author was trying to make.

Now, if someone were to write a better article along the same lines, I start over. A better article would essentially be more historical, taking into account the years of negotiations.