I think when someone is asking a bit of a question (i.e. mentioning that they were trying to learn about something), and a rather technical one at that, those distinctions are important. Garland wasn't filibustered, the majority just never scheduled anything, which they do all the time on all sorts of stuff. A filibuster is a specific "power" and the "nuclear option" that Syph was inquiring about is related purely to that, there was no "nuclear option" (aka reducing to simple majority) to force Garland through on the say of the "minority."
If the majority never brings up Goursch and the term runs out, it's not a filibuster, it's a filibuster if the minority actively blocks him until the term runs out after he's been brought to a floor vote.
It's the same deal on legislation, the majority controls what comes to the floor. The distinction has been the notion that the President gets to appoint whoever he wants as its in his purview, while legislation is Congress' purview first. Only the former has never really been the case, especially at the end of Presidential terms even with friendly Congresses.
