Calling your criticism a stretch would be far too charitable. I made it clear what I meant and I’ve got better things to do than nitpick over semantics.

No you haven't but whatever. I have better things to do that argue with pedants.

Jeez. It’s not every day you get called a pedant by someone that wants to pick apart your usage of one word.

That's your contention, not mine. Your whole argument was bad.

"Implying" seems kind of weak, the person you're responding to shared the definition they are using.

Yes, after the fact; that is after my response they provided a definition.

> the person you're responding to shared the definition they are using

No, technically they didn't. They provided a definition, they didn't say it was the one they are using here. If it's not pedantic tangent, it seem correct to assume that is the definition they are using, but that's what "Implying" means, so I trying to explicitly get a clarification on that.

"Why?" you might ask? Not every discussion is in good faith. The more that is assumed, the more leeway you allow for people to weasel out of countered arguments.

Yes. They provided their definition in response to your (mis?)reading of their original words. They are not the party bringing bad faith to this conversation.

Oh? And who is? provide receipts please.