You specifically? How would I know? I don't think my funny word buzzer or anybody else's is much affected by the fact that you're doing the verbal shuffling or if somebody else is. I have trouble with some sorts of split infinitives that others use with ease; they simply ring badly to my ear. Such things I think may be disagreed about without too much trouble.
It's when the actual meaning of the words themselves gets shuffled around too abruptly that discord comes in. We are then talking about the content and meaning of the words themselves, and suggesting that folks don't actually mean what they say when they say something, but may mean instead something almost entirely different.
This is something that is essentially an attack on the social construction of the reality that a culture shares in common. And an attack on the social contract that governs the behavior of members of that culture toward each other. In our culture we call these attacks "freedom of speech," and we permit them with the understanding that this is "protected speech" and should be permitted, even if it is uncomfortable and impolite. We are less lenient about speech that is not political, and which attacks the social contract between people.
The business about changing the meaning of a word seems to me to fall into this latter category.
If a person is willing to change the meaning of one word unilaterally in the middle of a debate to their own advantage, it undermines the level of trust necessary to hold a discussion. What terms, then, might be shifted without warning unilaterally in the future? Why should such a conversation be attempted if it is not done from a position of mutual understanding?
"Omniscience" probably was the word that you were looking for when it was time to provide a good hook for your title. But it was not the word that you would want to build a good case around; certainly not the word as it was defined by the dictionary. You probably could have solved your problem by coming up with a different word in the title, provocative enough for a good lead, and yet defensible without having to distort the language for the work you wanted to do in the body of your responses.
I was struck by this exchange between you and Stephanos:
What makes some innovations endure, and others fizzle?
I think both wisdom and unwisdom. On one hand someone may use something in a very wise way and it may catch on and continue, but on the other someone may use something very unwisely and mistakenly and it may catch on and continue as well.
What you say here has some merit.
I think that what may be equally important is what the language needs as opposed to what we need for our own purposes. As we stumble along in our writing and conversation, we will occasionally come to places where there are ideas that need to be expressed for which there are no words that come quickly to mind, or where those words that come quickly to mind have an over-chewed texture to them, and an over-familiar flavor and too simple or too rough a shape. At those places and at those times the language asks us for a contribution. We can rise to it or not, and the contribution will be accepted or not, but there will be out chance. It is a playful moment of creation as much as it is wisdom.
Anyway, some thoughts of my own on the nature of the dilemma.
Best wishes, Bob Kaven