Why "Whoops", Jim? Two articles taking diametrically opposed views on a matter of definition, and how far the facts support the chosen definition of each author, is scarcely so convincing a proof that the second one, contradicting the first, must so definitively carry the argument to a triumphant conclusion, as to merit a "Whoops" to imply that the one who cited the first has been absolutely put in his place and left without a leg to stand on by the demonstrably unchallengeable factual and intellectual superiority of his interlocutor. Do better to fight it out with custard-pies at 20 paces than to imagine that you have overwhelmingly demolished anyone's argument simply by exclaiming "Whoops"!

~M~