All I can say is that I disagree, largely because there are words out there that work just as well as unique with your definition that don't carry the possibility of causing a misunderstanding. For example, if I said ``That piece of Tiffany glass is unique,'' do I mean that it's distinctive (which it certainly would be), or do I mean that it's the only one ever made (which it could be)? (Obviously, I would mean the latter.) That could be the difference between hundreds of dollars and hundreds of thousands of dollars.

So, no, changes that increase the semantic range are not always a Good Thing, as they often dilute the original meanings. If they were able to do the former without the latter, then that would definitely be a Good Thing.

Regardless, as long as you've thought about it, and determined, for logical reasons, that I'm an idiot for relying on this strict interpretation, which you obviously have, then I'm happy. Usually when I bring something like this up with the average citizen (usually because I need clarification on something they've said), I get the response ``You know what I mean'' or ``Whatever''. Which is what really bothers me. The fact that they simply don't care -- the content ignorance.