You didn’t actually disagree with me or my point, you just misunderstood part of what I said. That’s a typical danger of cherry-picking, and when people do that

You didn’t actually disagree with me or my point, you just misunderstood part of what I said. That’s a typical danger of cherry-picking, and when people do that it often gets called out and leads to tangential argument, and it’s one reason why HN guidelines push for generous “strongest plausible” interpretation in multiple ways at all times. Your actual point repeated and reiterated mine, so we’re in full agreement about trench boxes and the reasons behind OSHA laws. Perhaps violent agreement, as they say, but full agreement nonetheless. Just to try to make this tangent more constructive and thoughtful and less argumentative, it’s true that my last sentence is incomplete when taken literally. In retrospect, it’s certainly not a perfect summary of the point of OSHA’s on-site supervision rule. Keeping people out of the trench who don’t know the risks is one reason to have a supervisor, other reasons include keeping people who do know the personal risks from being allowed to choose to accept them, because they might not know the collective or company risks, or because their risk tolerance is unacceptably high. Maybe a better way to say it is that the point of the law is to prevent individual workers from having the choice to take such risks. In any case, I’m pointing out that my comment could be improved by starting with “One point..” rather than “The point..”. I assumed the context mentioning on-site supervision twice made it pretty clear, but that’s on me, my bad assumption. And it’s not uncommon for me to realize my writing is not as clear as I thought.