To be even more fair I also explicitly structured my own claim such that it still technically applies to your reading. That allowed me to make the claim both technically correct to a pedantic reading and an expression of the straightforward point that the difference is qualitative. (The obvious alternative response was to outright declare the comment a mere equivocation.)
only then is the sentence interpreted as you describe.
Not meant as an attack. I’m saying, “to be fair it didn’t actually say that in the original text, so this is new information, and the response is thus a reasonable one”. Your comment could easily be read as implying that this is not new information (and that the response is therefore mistaken), so I wanted to add a clarification.
To be even more fair I also explicitly structured my own claim such that it still technically applies to your reading. That allowed me to make the claim both technically correct to a pedantic reading and an expression of the straightforward point that the difference is qualitative. (The obvious alternative response was to outright declare the comment a mere equivocation.)
Meaning that I didn’t, in fact, describe.
Not meant as an attack. I’m saying, “to be fair it didn’t actually say that in the original text, so this is new information, and the response is thus a reasonable one”. Your comment could easily be read as implying that this is not new information (and that the response is therefore mistaken), so I wanted to add a clarification.