The thing is that even when a disagreement seems to be about words, this very often also means that there are disagreeing motives; one persons either wants to accomplish something or to reach a certain conclusion, and thinks that such and such a definition will lend itself more easily to these goals. Meanwhile, the other person does not have these goals. The consequence is that at least one person may resist the clarification of meaning, because such a clarification will tend to impede his ends.
This is a very good observation. I think certainly the most useful application of the "map and territory" metaphor in my everyday life is that I am now able to make someone's implicit motivations (disguised in semantic disagreements) explicit and obvious to everyone involved.
This thread is for asking any questions that might seem obvious, tangential, silly or what-have-you. Don't be shy, everyone has holes in their knowledge, though the fewer and the smaller we can make them, the better.
Please be respectful of other people's admitting ignorance and don't mock them for it, as they're doing a noble thing.
To any future monthly posters of SQ threads, please remember to add the "stupid_questions" tag.