[andybak]

Something can depend on another thing and still be "bigger" than it. (as woolly as that definition is)

I don't actually agree with the point you're contesting with but your reasoning here is flawed. Also - you might want to check your tone for future posts. It's slighty combative.

[yyt88]

Apologies, I'm new here.

How would you express your angle regarding the contested point?

[andybak]

You're making a logical connection betweeen x depending on y and x being (bigger/more important/more significant) than y.

That implies that nothing can be more important than all of the things that were neccesary for it to come to pass. And there are a huge number of neccesary preconditions for most things. Your definition would result in a very counterintuitive definition of importance.

[yyt88]

I understood your criticism of my post. What I was asking for as how you would have expressed the criticism of the post I was criticising, since you mentioned that you also don't agreee with it, just like me.

[andybak]

I just would have made my wording less harsh and less sounding like a personal attack.