You can speak only for you, or, speak for others if they showed their lack of understanding of my piece, e.g.,. Victor and BT are likely candidates, but, I'd call bias if you give those as examples.
You're one of many. I have evidence that some of them do understand me, I don't know if your reading comprehension missed my point about my rep comments.
Strawman. I never said everyone should understand Victor, just that there are people that do not.You would have been proven correct ONLY if 1/ everybody would not understand Victor,
So, it's still the same issue, there are some that understand Victor, some that don't. There are some that understood that piece of mine, and some that didn't. I'm not making any commentary on subjective evaluation of quality between his and mine, mind you. Just what gets achieved. C-O-M-P-R-E-H-E-N-S-I-O-N.
Again, faulty logic. You said that you did not understand mine, so to you this should be the only difference between his work and mine. You cannot comment on any other difference between us. Just that you understood his, and not mine. Now if you had said you understood (and proved it, hence my starting you off with the challenge), then only can any other qualitative difference you propose between Victor and I be relevant.if those who could would not have noticed the obvious difference with your pastiche.
Ti-man! Use the Ti!