Hacker News Reader

Comment by dogorman | Hacker News Reader

> "Important, salient"

A keystone is that. Keystones are key, take the keystone out of an arch and the arch collapses. Doesn't that make a keystone "important, salient"? I think it does. Both of those definitions support these words being synonyms. I quoted both definitions because I believe both support my point. (And I quoted both for 'keystone' because if I didn't, I figured you'd disingenuously attribute that omission to malfeasance.)

> As another poster has asked, why would you choose to change a shorter, more common word for a longer, less common one if they mean exactly the same?

My response to him applies to you as well. You would not be nitpicking such word choices if you were not looking for a crack to gain leverage in the conversation.

View on HN

==You would not be nitpicking such word choices if you were not looking for a crack to gain leverage in the conversation.==

You would not be defending title manipulation if you were not trying to defend your own perceived leverage.

The new headline is perfectly acceptable and means the same thing as the old. This has been my position in this conversation since the start.

==and means the same thing as the old.==

Multiple people are telling you that it means something different in their experience. Personally, I have 3 keys to my house, but my house has only 1 keystone.

Why would you replace a 3-letter word with an 8-letter word that means the same thing? Especially when you have to type the entire word "key" to get to "keystone".

All that would be relevant if I were positing that key > keystone, but it's obviously the opposite so I'm not sure why you're trying to convince me that a keystone is important.

I'm not looking for a crack here and the "nitpicking" was a convenient example of how both sides are skewing reality to suit their ends.

Anyway, I notice that the title has now been changed to reflect the original headline so I guess somebody else thought they were different enough words to warrant changing it back again.

> I guess somebody else thought they were different enough words to warrant changing it back again.

Or dang thought to cut this fruitless tangent off at the knees. I am perfectly happy with the new headline, because it means the same thing as the old. If I were dang I'd change it too, for that reason. The new headline is still a damning indictment of US media.

> The new headline is still a damning indictment of US media.

It might be if it actually mentioned the US... or is that bit implied?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com