Mate. Regardless of the reading of this rule or the others - you are doing yourself and your points a huge disservice with how you come across. I'm an Aspie, I know that I barely have a filter (a bit more so nowadays, but I remember how it was to have none at all) and yet even I still, as it was phrased here, cringe when I read your tone. Your logic is sound on the point of semantics. The reading of TI you have is valid on the linguistic premise, yet invalid on the design premise and known RAI (@ijw is as close as we get to the birthplace of the rules here). The phraseology, the complete phrases, the structure and the words you choose to color your points with however make you come across as a snide, arrogant and bombastic person who in one paragraph lambasts and utterly dismisses other forum users for the sheer temerity of disagreement with your own premise, call the product "a piece of trash" in another and call for moderator assistance as if you were a helpless victim being injustly dogpiled over here. My honest advice - cut out the emotion, leave pure logic. Talk semantics, talk syntax, talk design, talk triggers, talk consequence in the meta. Just not users, opinions, product and your feelings about them. Otherwise your valid goal of rule design analysis will not be achieved.