Given the downvotes on imgabe’s comments, it seems that understanding is sufficiently uncommon / extreme and easily corrected by rereading, so as to render this additional data point too much of an outlier to factor it into any conclusions.
Nobody disputes it’s possible to have the same understanding, it’s just not reasonable, and not realistic to claim it as a function of the way the point was initially written.
Nobody disputes it’s possible to have the same understanding, it’s just not reasonable, and not realistic to claim it as a function of the way the point was initially written.