I'm a pragmatist, not a purist. The meaning of "mode" and attendant musical concepts continuously evolved throughout the medieval times and up through the present day. What has remained constant has been the relation of the named modes to particular intervalic structures. I'm certainly not being "VERY misleading" in explaining modes from this perspective. The fundamental character of a mode derives from the intervalic structure relative to the tonal center; intonation systems have an effect, but since there was never a single intonation system in use, there never was a single Dorian mode whose character was primarily dependent on a specific intonation system.

This can be very easily proved: On a just-intoned instrument, transpose a tune by a second or third. By purist standards this is the equivalent of harmonic heresy. Yet most people will hardly notice anything more than that you have changed key - they will remain largely oblivious to the microtonal changes in the intervals with respect to the tonal center. Then play the tune in a different mode, keeping the tonal center the same. They will instantly notice the fundamental change in character/mood.

That being the case, the modern shift to even temperament does not cause a reinterpretation of "mode". (Speaking of "olds words for new concepts", what about the naming of Latin liturgical modes after Greek ones, when the Greek concept of mode bears little relation? ;-)

So pardon me if my remarks are directed at helping practical musicians, playing modern instruments according to modern conventions for the pleasure of real people. It's useful to have the historical perspective, but such limited notions are not very helpful to one who wants to recognize a Mixolydian tune when he hears it, or needs to play a C Dorian accompaniment on a particular instrument. When teaching someone to ride a bike, do you expatiate on power conversion?