Yes, be that as it may was me agreeing with you that I am sometimes pedantic.

Again, as I am not the one drawing this out, perhaps you should take your own advice.

Pedantic: an insulting word used to describe someone who annoys others by correcting small errors, caring too much about minor details, or emphasizing their own expertise especially in some narrow or boring subject matter.

Sounds to me like I'm not the only pedant here... Which one of us is claiming expertise in language? I certainly never did. You keep dragging me back into a discussion I was done with hours ago, for what purpose, I wonder? Is it to staunchly defend the current use of one language? Or is it to prove me wrong? Is it so important to you to be right on Reddit that you're just going to keep hammering away? Or are you going to stop being childish because I, like many others, choose not to agree with you about the validity of certain linguistic conventions?

Your call.

Be that as it may, you are simply proving my final point now.

To address your comment as something other than a childish outburst:

I am aware that I am, at times, somewhat pedantic. But when I speak, the people around me know what I'm saying to them without having to do ten minutes of mental gymnastics.

Also, have you had fun today, trying to pick on an autistic person? I hope so.

I'm not angry at anyone. I'm also not upset that my "original" language isn't the default. (It's not my original language.) As I've said, I have no problem with the evolution of language (I'm actually hoping it eventually all becomes one language so there are no barriers). My problem is with language, in general, being treated like the rules of language are irrelevant. That leads to multiple, fragmented interpretations of nearly any word, which makes it harder for people to communicate, thus evolving backwards. I'm beginning to feel a little sorry for you, though. Do you always feel the need to insult, based on false assumptions, anyone you think is wrong? I'm not asking as a troll. I'm genuinely concerned. This conversation could have been had without assumptions or insults. Why did you feel the need to immediately take shots at me personally, especially when you later claim that your problem isn't actually with me?

Wow. You know so much about me! Except you don't. I don't think that the ability to share information with the world is bad. I think that unregulated changes to language is a little idiotic. I appreciate language that means what it says. When any word can mean anything, we are no longer able to truly communicate. It's not a question of relevance. It's a question of literal communication. I'm not a nationalist, either. I think the arbitrary separation of humans based on a line somebody drew is idiotic. I do quite enjoy a good chamomile infusion, though. Helps me sleep.

And before you continue to attempt to insult my intelligence, remember that you're the one spamming someone because they disagree with your beliefs about tea.

First, I'm not British.

Second, despite the vernacular usage, tea means tea. That we call other things "tea" does not change the fact that they are infusions, not tea. I also refuse to accept that decimate means the same thing as annihilate, or that literally can also mean figuratively. I read often, thank you. I understand the concept of colloquial usage, but the fact is that the internet has made that "rule" kind of self defeating.

Tea comes from tea leaves. Tea leaves have caffeine unless it is specifically removed. Anything not containing tea leaves isn't technically tea, it's an infusion.

Tea has caffeine.

Mind over matter...

People get weird about instruments, though. I had a guitarist who was a vocal advocate for pacifism nearly bludgeon a sound engineer because the engineer insulted his guitar. Musicians are kind of crazy to begin with, and guitarists are a special kind...

That's both hilarious and totally understandable. I didn't know there were two of them until well past school age. I spent a lot of my childhood wondering how an American author became British Prime Minister...

Written in 1899 to the American author Winston Churchill, proposing a solution to problems of confusion between the two of them. Churchill's letter to the other Winston Churchill

London, June 7, 1899.

"Mr. Winston Churchill presents his compliments to Mr. Winston Churchill, and begs to draw his attention to a matter which concerns them both. He has learnt from the Press notices that Mr. Winston Churchill proposes to bring out another novel, entitled Richard Carvel, which is certain to have a considerable sale both in England and America. Mr. Winston Churchill is also the author of a novel now being published in serial form in Macmillan's Magazine, and for which he anticipates some sale both in England and America. He also proposes to publish on the 1st of October another military chronicle on the Soudan War. He has no doubt that Mr. Winston Churchill will recognise from this letter — if indeed by no other means — that there is grave danger of his works being mistaken for those of Mr. Winston Churchill. He feels sure that Mr. Wiston Churchill desires this as little as he does himself. In future to avoid mistakes as far as possible, Mr. Winston Churchill has decided to sign all published articles, stories, or other works, 'Winston Spencer Churchill,' and not 'Winston Churchill' as formerly. He trusts that this arrangement will commend itself to Mr. Winston Churchill, and he ventures to suggest, with a view to preventing further confusion which may arise out of this extraordinary coincidence, that both Mr. Winston Churchill and Mr. Winston Churchill should insert a short note in their respective publications explaining to the public which are the works of Mr. Winston Churchill and which those of Mr. Winston Churchill. The text of this note might form a subject for future discussion if Mr. Winston Churchill agrees with Mr. Winston Churchill's proposition. He takes this occasion of complimenting Mr. Winston Churchill upon the style and success of his works, which are always brought to his notice whether in magazine or book form, and he trusts that Mr. Winston Churchill has derived equal pleasure from any work of his that may have attracted his attention"