moot

[John Halleck]

On Mon, 15 May 2006, Andy Waddington wrote:

> On Monday 2006-05-15 15:05, John Halleck wrote:
> > ...  Which
> > makes arguments ... rather moot.
> 
> Isn't that the whole point of arguments ? Doesn't "moot" mean
> "open to argument" ?

   According to my copy of Webster's New World Dictionary, the
   word has two meanings:
      1. Debatable
      2. Hypothetical

   You've correctly paraphrased the first, although the reason seems
   to be lost on me.

   I thought it clear the second was intended.



   I've always found that when a discussion has degenerated to
   the point where people want to argue about specific word choices
   of other people, instead of addressing any substance of what
   they had to say, it is time for me to bow out of the discussion.