1) According to my dictionary, one meaning of "semantics" is "connotative meaning." I referred to the fact that the meaning of the words "crushing defeat" (not the data) can be argued endlessly and pointlessly. This is a common usage of "semantics" (at least in the U.S.) and I'm sure you understood me. You refer to yourself as an "Inveterate non-stander of fools." Apparently to you this means you invite arguments, pretend to misunderstand what the opposition is saying and then stroke your ego by slapping them with sarcasm.

2) I have not forgotten election night and it was personally painful. To call it a "Waterloo" is a ridiculous example of the "rhetorical obfuscation" you accused someone else of in this discussion. Were I to use your technique, I might respond that: "Comparing this election to Waterloo, where Napoleon met his utter and final defeat, shows your either your ignorance or dishonesty. To anyone with a smattering of knowledge, this statement is a joke."

I am done. I will let you and others on your side of the issue have the last word. I am sure you would take it anyway.