[Snarf]

Ah yes, the "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal. Play that game without defending your stance all you want, the bottom line is you chose the absolute. Absolutes, such as unintended = exploit, cannot be attacked with exaggerations, distortions or as you've called it, "grasping at straws." They all rely on making a lot out of a little, but still require that "little." Something that doesn't exist if it's absolute.

But we know it isn't absolute, hence why you've resorted to the "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal. So can I assume your next reply is going to be about the semantics and not the reconciliation of things that are neither unintended nor an exploit? More witty little translations of my posts without defending your stance, perhaps?