> I am not ignoring it: I was bringing a point on terminology, not on this particular lock or lock-picking methods. You declared an entirely new definition for

> I am not ignoring it: I was bringing a point on terminology, not on this particular lock or lock-picking methods. You declared an entirely new definition for lockpicking which is contradictory to all accepted definitions of lockpicking, and then used it to repeatedly insist that the lock being discussed isn't pickable. Your comments are public and what you said is clearly visible, so please stop creating new realities when holes are poked in the previously concocted one. > You seem to be unable to accept that people tend to and do use different terminology for same things, or same terminology for different things. [...] I do struggle to understand why are you so keen to convince others how your use of terminology is the only acceptable use: it's ok to agree to disagree. You appear unable to accept that there is an entire industry of locksmithing experts and 100% of them use the same terminology. You are insisting that your invented definitions based on zero locksmithing knowledge should be more relevant than the actual definitions standardized over 4,000 years by hundreds of thousands of experts. The rest of your comment consists of even more bizarre new definitions for lockpicking and mathematics which contradict reality, and veers even further away from the actual topic being discussed. I refuse to engage with it, because you are making all of your arguments in bad faith. If you can provide any shred of evidence for any of your claims about lockpicking, logic or math, I'll happily concede. But we both know that evidence doesn't exist.