Easykill said:
....I think I would have preferred the religiosity debate to this. I mean, if someone ever asks me for the definition of a nerd, I can just come here and show them a bunch of people having a debate over what the definition of a cyborg is after someones offhand, and sarcastic, remark.
If you actually weren't annoyed by the "debate over what the definition of a cyborg is" and were being more sarcastic/humorous than annoyed, and I misread you, you can disregard most of the following. Or at least, add more sarcasm than would be intended if you had been serious to start with:
I didn't take GrowlersAtSea's original comment to be sarcastic, but instead an entirely relevant, valid point. Anyone
actually trying to disprove GrowlersAtSea's point by arguing that the premise of his hypothetical is flawed on the basis of the use of the term "cyborg" is either trying to be funny, or being a sore loser. In either case, they're incorrect, as far as I can tell, about what a cyborg is, and what it would imply if Julius Caesar were a cyborg.
In any case, either my sarcasm detector is completely busted, or you're being a killjoy. Besides, the debate isn't really over what a cyborg is (as I was merely pointing out a related point about the misuse of the term cyborg in the larger discussion). Instead, thus far, the debate I've been paying attention to is centered around the validity of certain (il)logical methods for supporting the existence of the supernatural, as an offshoot of the overall discussion around the existence of ghosts.
I also take offense at the term "nerd." At least "geek" has some positive connotations within the community.