I get his meaning and agree. But I would say it actually points out something just as important: using a word outside it's linguistically confined definition does not change that word's definition. That is a trick I encounter daily with the religious, in business, and I catch myself committing this sin sometimes as well. When I commit this sin I bow before my "Oxford Dictionary of American Usage" and my old copy of "The Chicago Manual of Style" ( Weird name I know ) and pray to my former English professors that they would still give me a passing grade for substance over style. Alas, I would get an "F" because they taught me that to ignore one is to negate the other; they are as intimately connected as space is to time.