This really gets on my nerves. ishouldstayaway provided a perfectly valid resource to support the initial statement that gourmand isn't just about quantity anymore.

> Well, you had to go to #2

This is clearly a disparaging remark meant to discredit their comment. So what if it's #2? It's a definition in multiple dictionaries. This usage warranted its own definition.

> in an American English dictionary

Same thing here- italicizing American as if it means anything. Again, both Merriam Webster and the OED carry both definitions.

> It's a usage that has morphed in recent times, sure

"Recent" being 1758. 268 years. Long enough that it doesn't warrant a nit anymore.

> the first 1a primary

Again: the non-quantity usage warranted a dictionary definition.

> Following that Chesterfield example is a 1816 Coleridge extract

Ignoring the 1804 extract before that and the extracts after it.

All in all I find this type of interaction (needing to be "correct" instead of accepting that there are multiple usages) to be extremely distasteful, leaving a sour taste in my mouth.