Now now Ms Beau, you're well aware you're one of the most skilled debaters on this site. You and I are perpetually trying to outflank each other in all our head-to-heads and your ability to select the battleground, steer the conversation and outflank others is one of the things I both like and hate about you. Those of us who have been around the block a few times shape each other's arguments and indeed each other's style of argument. I know I'm going to have a tough time with you and I know you're a stickler for a side-fight on the particular sentence you want to focus on. I prefer to have a generalised discussion and ignore the minutiae. We're both trying to pick the route to victory and enjoying the journey. We both come away unscathed and we continue to show up because we enjoy it (at least I do).

However, someone new, with less than 100 followers (as the OP is), unfamiliar with your style, and unfamiliar with your tenacity would've been on the back-foot from the get-go - that accounts for much of the flanneling here. I think the OP stood their ground rather admirably and you've driven them skilfully towards a linguistic Waterloo. I came at this conversation without bias and, as I said, my interpretation of their words were different to yours - that doesn't mean anyone is right, just that there's a linguistic complexity and nuance at play here. Go back and read without bias and consider the differential in experience, followers and practice. You do love a bit of oppressor and oppressed; which are you in this tete-a-tete? ;o)