Explain the contradiction you're seeing there.
The title you're assigning to me is not an official title, and if it's something you sincerely believe you shouldn't resort to allegations of disingenuous behaviour. If it isn't something you sincerely believe, it should be obvious what word we would use to describe the giving of said title.
What has being forced got to do with anything? You just claimed I've been insisting on terminology that someone else used, simply because I tried to explain what he was saying. I never insisted on the same terminology and even stated that I remember the two terms he was drawing a distinction between being used synonymously. "I didn't tag you, nobody forced you to read my comment" is a bit of a lazy retort to being called out on making a claim that you know is false.
You
are insisting on terminology that somebody else used. If you're not insisting on it, what are you even trying to explain? If I were then to just use "Leave", it would require an implicit understanding of one of the things "Leave" can mean, that you felt you had to explain to me. This would then open it up to anyone to ask
me what I meant, and round we'd go again.
And yes, I didn't tag you. You chose to read it and take subsequently, take some kind of personal offense to my being precise. Or maybe it was just the attribution, in which case I'm sorry, but you're explaining Edward's words. You've said how you politely disagree with me, and how you didn't think it was "really too difficult to infer" Edward's point. Ergo, the meaning is clear to the both of you. However, others may disagree. I certainly did. Which means, quite plainly and without a ridiculous amount of effort, the precision in the quote has to be attributed to the both of you. Any deeper meaning you choose to read into it simply isn't there. I can't do anything about that, despite having to use all these words to then explain the lack of a personal slight.
Please point to where I insisted you didn't understand something. I said "you gave the impression that you didn't understand it". By your own logic, if that's the impression I got then it's fair to say it gave that impression no? It does seem somewhat contradictory that you keep saying you understood exactly what he meant, whilst simultaneously you also keep saying that you didn't read his initial post on the previous page and that what he said was ambiguous, but it's no skin off my nose. If you say you understood it then I accept you understood it. This doesn't alter the fact that I initially thought you didn't understand it and that that was why I explained what he was saying. But at no point have I insisted on you or anyone else adopting Edward's terminology so kindly refrain from stating that I did.
Sorry, to be clear, you have repeatedly suggested that I don't understand.
Maybe the problem is in me saying something is ambiguous. Allow me to try and explain: something being ambiguous doesn't mean I don't understand any of the multiple possible meanings behind the ambiguity. The problem is in parsing the ambiguity, and not in any amount of understanding required. I know, at this point I'd say, the totality of Edward's possible range of opinions on both Brexit, Vote Leave, unassociated Leave-related campaigns, and all the politicians and other public figures involved in all three categories,
and the shorthand of "Leave" as leaving the EU, which acts as a shorthand for Vote Leave, the unassociated campaigns,
and the hypothetical magical act of Leaving the EU that we would've got in the magical timeline that folks like Edward got whatever level of competence they wanted from the UK, and whatever lack of objections they got in this timeline from the EU that folks like Edward feel deserve the blame.
You decided to insert yourself in with an assumption that was clear to you, because you don't have the posting history Edward and I have. This is something you should reflect on, the next time you feel up to two pages of a semantic derail.