>I think it's obvious that nobody wants to argue semantics with you. If there is a semantic difference between JVM and IL bytecodes, then there isn't a functional one due to people calling them different things.

It isn't an issue of semantics. Bytecode is executable on both JVM and CRL. They have no functional difference.

BUT, CIL is not bytecode. CIL is assembled in to bytcode.
Java is assembled in to bytecode.
.Net languages like C#, VB.Net, IronPython and the 40 or so others are compiled in to CIL. The CIL is then compiled in to bytecode.

>just as most people working in JVM compilers work in JVM op assembly. Note the difference is the terms, not in what they do or how they do it.

The Java "virtual machine assembly language" is close to CIL. Except, according to Sun there is no standard way of representing it.
http://java.sun.com/docs/books/jvms/second_edition/html/Compiling.doc.html
So yes, its close, but functionally different.

>Calling people shit eating retards while you're arguing whether that is "sky blue" or "light blue" is why nobody likes you and you have no friends.

No, I say that because he contends that Java bytecode is a computer programming language. He then further disproved this by proving it. You seem to understand that bytecode is not a computer programming language.