Why would you go from the proposal in the article that involved making a confusing expression like "bool > bool" a compiler error, to the absurd example of sugg

Why would you go from the proposal in the article that involved making a confusing expression like "bool > bool" a compiler error, to the absurd example of suggesting that C++'s syntax be changed to be identical to Rust? How could talking that way possibly be conducive to having a serious discussion about the article, which is trying to eliminate 90% of the safety issues in C++? If that is the manner in which you think a reasonable discussion can be had on this issue, then no, you are no qualified to discuss it and your participation has done nothing and continues to do nothing but derail the topic which is likely why no one has bothered responding to you.