Ah another glorious and mostly useless Ti vs Te fight.
This one over a definition, which I found to be a hilarious played out argument.
It's kindof like Websters vs Oxford.
The thing is when you get into that you gotta know when it goes there your going to be Ti'd alot.
Fast foward: someone mentions something wild about a female having a prostate. Cue snobericious argument from Te type about how retarded it is to have a female prostate. Something piqued in my mind from past anatomy/biology classes that there possibly was a female prostate. I chime in when I find that its considered accurate by some bodies to call it the female prostate: chiefly done by the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Technology. He refuses to accept it based on his own knowledge of the two differrening male and female versions. I state I think its fine and actually accurate and possibly might make it the texts in years to come. I think I've already seen it in psychology books as a possibility. He starts attacking me, red herrings, and making appeals to authority that he's studied with so called "elite" professors and such.
I find it ludicrous and its a standstill, telling him it's basically accepting definitions or not, he can't win just by throwing more irrelevant information at me. I told him to take it up with FICAT if he was so convinced. I'm sure they have very good reasons considering thats they're whole purpose.
And no wikipedia wasn't my only source and this wasn't just made up.
Relevant as to why perhaps it's named so: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...869552,00.html