[wfunction]

> People can only reply to what you say, not what you might have meant or believed to be self-evident.

Well, it seems like at least some people understood what I meant:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5599351

So maybe you just took it too literally at face value?

I wasn't writing a computer program, I was writing English, so let's try to understand what I was saying instead of attempting to interpret it like a computer.

My entire point was that "equal" isn't necessarily the correct ratio, so if you got that point you got my entire point; if not then you missed it.

[lutusp]

> So maybe you just took it too literally at face value?

That's called being respectful of the views of others, and not presuming to interpret their words in any way one chooses.

> I wasn't writing a computer program, I was writing English, so let's try to understand what I was saying instead of attempting to interpret it like a computer.

I have a better idea -- say exactly what you mean. Don't assume other people will understand things you don't bother to say.

The problem with leaving interpretation of your words to others, is they will interpret your words in ways you didn't intend.

[wfunction]

> Don't assume other people will understand things you don't bother to say.

I never assumed; I simply hoped it would be the case. Feel free to believe whatever you think I really meant, I already made my point so if you end up missing it that's perfectly fine with me.

[lutusp]

> Feel free to believe whatever you think I really meant ...

Want to communicate? Communicate. Use words that have universally accepted meanings. Stop assuming that others will or must fill in your blanks for you.

So far, you've tried and failed to argue that incoherence is a virtue and your communications breakdowns are the fault of others. Sorry -- no sale.

> I already made my point ...

The only point you've made is that you haven't made your point -- instead, you assign to others the responsibility for decoding the things you didn't say.