I think people are just making a normal, perfectly correct and reasonable observation that the description was misleading, because it really was. But the hallm

I think people are just making a normal, perfectly correct and reasonable observation that the description was misleading, because it really was. But the hallmark of many internet comment threads is to try and get additional mileage out the conversation by subjecting said reasonable observations to the ritual exercise of switcheroos, contrarianism, idiosyncratic distinctions and unusual interpretations. Which leads to the original wisdom being repeated, which makes it seem like it's being blown out of proportion. But I think the simpler explanation is just that it's a correct observation and that it's not that complicated.