These metaphysical disputes, Hirsch points out, seem rather different from disputes about whether the Loch Ness monster exists, or whether there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They are more like the dispute between the purist who says that only cocktails made of gin or vodka, dry vermouth, and perhaps an olive or two count as martinis, and the sorority girl who calls practically anything a martini as long as it served in the classic V-shaped glass. If these two are seated at a table on which such a glass contains some nonsense made of sour green apple liqueur, the latter will say that there is a martini there, and the former will deny it. This is a paradigm case of a verbal dispute. The disputants agree on all the facts, but disagree on how to use the word ‘martini’. (The purist is of course right about the use of the word. remember that there can be verbal disputes in which one side is straightforwardly mistaken!)
Karen Bennett "Composition, Colocality and Metaontology"
It's rare that a philosophical example is as revealing and insightful concerning the content of the example as they are concerning the philosophical concept that the example is wheeled in to elucidate.
