Wow, great catch! The timing is impeccable, as we were just discussing this exact thing in another thread. Selgin’s reply to you seems like a total whoosh. EDIT: Actually not a total woosh, but a partial one. He gets that there is a problem with semantics, but instead of trying to sort out the definitions so that the debate can actually begin, he seems to instead conclude that “semantics” should be avoided (including the sorting out of definitions!). Much more on Selgin’s comment here, because I found it a fascinating specimen (though I may mostly agree with his position).