giraffe used the pattern of "X is not A" I used the same pattern to further weaken it to "X is not A of type B" (which, logically, must be true if giraffe's st

giraffe used the pattern of "X is not A" I used the same pattern to further weaken it to "X is not A of type B" (which, logically, must be true if giraffe's statement is true). They've said it's not 'A.' My statement was COMPATIBLE in fact with their original statement being true, it just leaves open the door that it may not be. It's certainly possible something could be both not a community and not the community they envision, and in fact if it weren't a community it couldn't possibly be the one they envision. Nothing I said necessarily conflicts with their definition. Given that the comment I responded to and my comment used very similar patterns with mine only weakening the 'not' possibilities I'm really struggling to understand why my comment suddenly crossed the line to you. It didn't even assert the previous comment or definition was incorrect.