I don't think you do get the point - the point is that unless you define every single word in a rule (like how legislation has a definitions page), it's very hard to do simple content moderation in a way that everyone agrees
This is silly, though? Rules and legislation is also usually layered in such a way that other rules can supercede.
Such that, if your model of how rules and regulations work is that they are all active at all times.... I have really bad news for you. For fun, consider that there is still the 18th amendment to the US constitution. There is just also now the 21st amendment to go with it. And at no point did we have to redefine words for that trick.
Regardless of whether you do actually get the point, when multiple comments indicate that they think that you didn't get the point that tells you that you have failed to communicate that you got the point. Doubling down doesn't help
I do not know how to communicate "I got the point" more than "I got the point". Please tell me how to communicate "I got the point" better than saying "I got the point".
They think I didn't get the point, but they're wrong. Hope that helps!
It's definitely a rhetorical challenge, and even if TFA is using a poor analogy, it does serve to illustrate this problem, which feels to me like part of what it is trying to communicate.
I have a lot of experience thinking that I get the point of someone else's argument, and then realizing later that I didn't actually get the point, or not in a way that was useful to both parties in the conversation
When I don't feel understood it's usually because the counterparty hasn't said things that allow me to recognize that they have internalized what I'm trying to communicate
Changing tack a little, I think that this is one of the things that I admire about some legal writing, that they are intentionally addressing the act of communication in addition to the substance of what they are communicating. In addition there is a recognition that their words have consequence
This whole debate is funny because it's exactly what the game itself is about. Everyone sees this as a very clear, unambiguous thing, and the other side must be misunderstanding it. If only I explain it the right way, they'll be forced to concede to my point of view. It's the only valid one! They can't possibly understand it and come to a different conclusion!
In this case, there are just three angry internet commenters who want to tell someone else they're wrong. It's not GP's problem. I agree with GP -- it's a bad metaphor. GP doesn't owe you litigating that in depth.
