So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re coming upon others who agree with my assertion that the term “touch typing” refers to a specific technique for typing, and using the term to refer to that specific technique, and your response is to call them pedantic because you think the term should be defined more broadly than they (or I) understand it to be defined. Is that correct?
As for the issue you point out with my analogy, I think one of us is confused, and I’m not attempting to imply that I know which one. I used the analogy because touch typing is a specific technique for typing, just as Taekwondo is a specific type of martial arts. A self-taught fighter would be analogous to a self-taught typist. If you believe the term “touch typing” absolutely cannot refer to a specific typing technique, then I would ask for the term you believe is correct to refer to that specific technique to which the rest of us are referring. I’m fine with using a different term to refer to the technique to which I am attempting to refer, but “touch typing” is the only one I know. If you know another, please provide it, and I’ll use that.
I’m not the one who started this discussion on what touch typing means, I’ve just given my view on it. Perhaps I could’ve phrased it more softly, but I won’t deny it’s what I think. And again, I agree with your assertion, but only when specificity is actually required. Otherwise, if you’re going to claim, outside of those contexts, that touch typing only refers to a specific technique, then yes, I think you are being pedantic.
EDIT:
Since I replied to your initial comment, I’ll update this one too. There definitely is some confusion with regard to your analogy. The point I was trying to make is that while Taekwondo is a type of martial art, it has different styles. From my point of view, you think only a specific style meets the definition of Taekwondo, and all others are something else entirely. If I were to choose a different name, I’d say something like 10-finger, or the home row technique. But I’m not going to try and force you to use any term other than what you want to use. I just have my own opinion on when it’s appropriate to be strict and precise in its definition.
The point is that I and others are clearly attempting to refer to a specific technique, even if we’re doing so using a term with which you disagree. If you dislike us using the term we’re using, then please provide an alternate term that we can use to refer to the specific technique. Otherwise, how are we to discuss said specific technique without giving offense?
So, if I’m understanding you correctly, you’re coming upon others who agree with my assertion that the term “touch typing” refers to a specific technique for typing, and using the term to refer to that specific technique, and your response is to call them pedantic because you think the term should be defined more broadly than they (or I) understand it to be defined. Is that correct?
As for the issue you point out with my analogy, I think one of us is confused, and I’m not attempting to imply that I know which one. I used the analogy because touch typing is a specific technique for typing, just as Taekwondo is a specific type of martial arts. A self-taught fighter would be analogous to a self-taught typist. If you believe the term “touch typing” absolutely cannot refer to a specific typing technique, then I would ask for the term you believe is correct to refer to that specific technique to which the rest of us are referring. I’m fine with using a different term to refer to the technique to which I am attempting to refer, but “touch typing” is the only one I know. If you know another, please provide it, and I’ll use that.
I’m not the one who started this discussion on what touch typing means, I’ve just given my view on it. Perhaps I could’ve phrased it more softly, but I won’t deny it’s what I think. And again, I agree with your assertion, but only when specificity is actually required. Otherwise, if you’re going to claim, outside of those contexts, that touch typing only refers to a specific technique, then yes, I think you are being pedantic.
EDIT: Since I replied to your initial comment, I’ll update this one too. There definitely is some confusion with regard to your analogy. The point I was trying to make is that while Taekwondo is a type of martial art, it has different styles. From my point of view, you think only a specific style meets the definition of Taekwondo, and all others are something else entirely. If I were to choose a different name, I’d say something like 10-finger, or the home row technique. But I’m not going to try and force you to use any term other than what you want to use. I just have my own opinion on when it’s appropriate to be strict and precise in its definition.
The point is that I and others are clearly attempting to refer to a specific technique, even if we’re doing so using a term with which you disagree. If you dislike us using the term we’re using, then please provide an alternate term that we can use to refer to the specific technique. Otherwise, how are we to discuss said specific technique without giving offense?
I edited my reply after I saw your edit.