> someone stating something in a fairly colloquial way, particularly something they thought was widely known, then having to progressively clarify the specific thing they meant when challenged by someone who didn't have the same facts
"neurological" is not the colloquial phrase for "non-obstructive" and "non-obstructive" is not a clarification on "neurological". They are different things.
So ... I mean are there other options than (a) and (b) here? Because if it those are the only options, and (a) is not an option, then well ... it kinda seems like (b).
You are continuing to make a pedantic argument about semantics, rather than considering the spirit of the other poster's statement.
In this particular case, the fact that the anosmia is non-obstructive strongly suggests that it is neurological. It is not conclusive proof, but, colloquially, in a discussion where it is not yet clear that the minutiae of that particular point will be nitpicked to death, it is perfectly reasonable to read carlmr's earlier statement as "non-obstructive, thus implying that it is most likely neurological".
What is not reasonable is to insist that carlmr not using the absolute most precise language possible is somehow proof of his bad faith in a little no-stakes argument on a tangent in the comments of a HackerNews article.
Seriously, mate, just chill. He wasn't trying to put one over on you, and the more you insist he was, the more you come off as someone looking to start trouble.
"neurological" is not the colloquial phrase for "non-obstructive" and "non-obstructive" is not a clarification on "neurological". They are different things.
So ... I mean are there other options than (a) and (b) here? Because if it those are the only options, and (a) is not an option, then well ... it kinda seems like (b).