Well, I suppose I could point out all the ways in which you are wrong, but it would be a lot easier to point out the fact that you clearly don't know what you are talking about. See, I'm not the one who initially made the determination that tomatoes are not traditionally eaten with the dessert course and are rather served with the main course of a meal. I'm not the one who put a tax on fruits and then didn't tax tomatoes because they are not, traditionally, fruits. (That one would be the US Supreme Court.) I am, however, just relaying facts as they are, and you are getting all pedantic and trying to split hairs and ultimately it makes no difference because, again, you clearly don't know what you are talking about. As stated above, botanically speaking tomatoes are, yes, fruits because of their biological function. However, completely separate from that issue and backed up by centuries of tradition (and the fact that they taste fucking disgusting in a pie) is the fact that any chef worth his salt - hell, anybody who has any clue how to find his way around a kitchen - would know better than to conflate the biological function with a part of a plant with its proper usage in a dish. Now, if you could find me a savory lemon or a bag of mixed nuts that didn't contain a single peanut, maybe I would be willing to concede that there is a one-to-one mapping between biological and culinary function, but I really doubt whether that's going to happen.