>>11103670>>11103673Actually, you know what, I'll break it down, just for you.
Was it clear? Clear enough that everyone else, apart from you, managed to understand the reasoning. Certainly when you take into account the published context.
Was it detailed? Yes, her argument was very "detailed", but flawed.
Therefore, by the definition you provided, it is EXPLICIT.
See, semantics is fun. But it certainly doesn't make for a strong argument.
>>11103675Clarity is defined by whether the majority of people find it intelligible, clearly you're the only one in the thread who doesn't. Therefore, you aren't the majority.
