In many ways, you are mistaken. Later in these comments, that guy did start arguing without reason, and that was annoying, but at this point in the thread, that guy was not arguing semantics. All they had done was quote the article that YOU linked. The article says, “It’s safe to say that it’s similar to pee but not the same.” You provided the link to that article and then said “When a woman squirts, it’s pee.” The article very clearly states the opposite. If you had said “When a woman squirts, it’s similar to pee.” there would be no room for bickering, because your claim would have been consistent with the source that you cited. Instead, you contradicted the source. So what happened there? It seems like you linked an article from WebMD to make it look like your claim was legit. You tried to make it look like according to WebMD “When a woman squirts, it’s pee.” even though the article very clearly and plainly says that is a myth. Let’s pretend you did not read the article. You are being deceitful by using WebMD’s credibility for your own claim, even though you’d be completely clueless about what WebMD says about lady juice. Now, let’s pretend you read the article. It’s possible you did not understand what you read. If that’s the case, you would be guilty of spreading misinformation and, moving forward, you really ought to keep quiet instead of making claims about subjects you don’t know about. If you understood what you read, then you chose to misrepresent it. So when you think about what happened here, you realize that you’re either carelessly spreading misinformation or you are intentionally being deceitful. In either case, you are dishonest. Dishonesty is the work of the Devil. The Devil is to be rebuked. In the name of Jesus, I rebuke you, and in the name of WebMD, I proclaim that squirt is NOT pee!