Sorry I went back and looked. It was in response to the first part of your comment. Since the first part of your comment indicates an apologist stance toward the “it’s new to some of us” justification for calling something old new, I would argue that your brief swing in the other direction at the tail end if your long comment is thus rendered irrelevant.

The “it’s new for some, therefore it’s not false to call it new” position is a logical fallacy that justifies the act that you seem to call to account in your last statement, so I would call your position incoherent, at best.