The explanations in the article are fascinating. I don't think it silly to expect an accurate model or accurate use of terminology when being taught a new concept. I would rather not be taught rather than be taught something wrong, and then have to unlearn, then when I relearn, have to try to remember which version is the right one.
Some of the author's points seem to be semantical, but overall I think he has some really good points.
Reno, I love your example. While it may have been awkward or inappropriate, I'm sure that even in the debate between analogies some insight could have be gained on the true nature of relativity, which is all an analogy is good for anyway. So even an argument over the better description can in itself provide its own description.
