> You're arguing semantics in a non-cooperative way. Huh, I think that's the first time I've been accused of being non-cooperative for saying what is essential

> You're arguing semantics in a non-cooperative way. Huh, I think that's the first time I've been accused of being non-cooperative for saying what is essentially "I think perhaps how you're interpreting that statement is not how it was meant and you're talking past each other." All I was saying is that it appears that zzzeek interpreted the original statement as "do X and Y can't happen" when I think ambiguous wording was used and that wasn't the intent, as I didn't interpret it that way. I'm arguing semantics because I think there is a misunderstanding of people's positions because of those semantics. I understand that it got a little long into the weeds, but there was a point.