You don't seem to be following the site rule of "charitable interpretation" here. This reads more like "legalistic nitpicky interpretation" - that is, like bad

You don't seem to be following the site rule of "charitable interpretation" here. This reads more like "legalistic nitpicky interpretation" - that is, like bad faith. (Yes, good faith/charitable interpretation can lead to misunderstandings when some things are left unsaid. No, I don't think maximum nitpickiness is the answer to that.)