I mean, PART of the idea is reasonable. I'm just pointing out that the idea taken in its entirety is absurd, and give the choice between assuming you're an absurdist and that you didn't read the article, I guessed the latter. Didn't consider that it was just an imprecise comment, but I'm aware that I'm usually too literal. I have a hard time with interpreting intent when it seems in conflict with the logical implications of words; I've been told it's a problem, and I'm trying to work on it. Sorry.