No they said "vim is intuitive, once X." Which is a different statement. It means "X => vim is intuitive," which can also be true when the antecedent (X) is fal

No they said "vim is intuitive, once X." Which is a different statement. It means "X => vim is intuitive," which can also be true when the antecedent (X) is false if going down the material implication route. Here X is "once you understand the characters." I think what's happening is that even if we agree on definitions of intuitive, what I'm trying to add is the context around the "vim is intuitive" statement that it is scoped in. It is scoped by the "... once ..." qualifying fragment after it. Also I'm not really saying what you should or shouldn't do. I'm saying try, because it could be fun; I want to see what happens when you take it there, sort of as a "hmm hey can we try this?" situation. It isn't as much a convincing as a "hey here's how I understand what he said--what do you think of that?" situation. More about going away with things to think about than "cool, I think I'm the person that won this argument." You're welcome to not try this, and I'll walk away, it's totally fine. FWIW I agree that the unqualified "vim is intuitive" wouldn't be reasonable to say. I'm just trying to explore the nuance.