Ah! I've got it now. Lotsofpulp didn't literally commit the atrocity of shooting down a metaphor/analogue presented to them (despite your characterizing their r

Ah! I've got it now. Lotsofpulp didn't literally commit the atrocity of shooting down a metaphor/analogue presented to them (despite your characterizing their reply as having run into that exact issue, which I'll finally concede I did assume to be an accusation of committing said issue) but they did defend doing so. You recalled a thing you see as common, and they explained why it's common, so of course they ran into that common thing, but merely in the sense of defending it, not in the sense of doing it. The meaning of language, English anyhow, does tend to be however it gets commonly interpreted. I think it's helpful to advocate for communication that achieves successful interpretation over that which doesn't, even if that which doesn't work ought to work. Many things are noble pursuits even if against the grain, but using language in unsuccessful ways isn't one of them due to its nature which favors agreeance of usage.