Er. Why don't you read my post again. I don't understand how you derived all that from what I wrote. I literally said this method was inefficient and asked how about whether it's a condition or he learned it.
As another commenter pointed out, you literally did not.
In fact, you went so far as to imply that it's constructed and not synesthesia.
As the same commenter pointed out, if multiple people have interpreted your comment in a particular way, regardless of your intentions, then it's maybe time to step back and re-evaluate.
>In fact, you went so far as to imply that it's constructed and not synesthesia.
No that implication is your and the other commenters imagination. READ my comment again.
> As the same commenter pointed out, if multiple people have interpreted your comment in a particular way, regardless of your intentions, then it's maybe time to step back and re-evaluate.
So serious. If multiple commenters interpreted my intention wrong then that's my bad wording is off. I mean it's not a huge deal. If I correct my mistake, and I inform you of my true intention, What then is the big deal?
Your telling me to take a step back and re-evaluate as if problems with my wording violated criminal law? I clarified my intent all you need to do is address it.
IN addition to this, there is the factor of actual grammatical English language interpretation vs. popular interpretation. There is something to say that the English definition and intent of my sentence holds equal ground to a popular misinterpretation.
Yes, it would be grand if our minds worked in a rational, logical fashion. But that's not even remotely representative of reality.