[thunky]

> I apologise for you misunderstanding my example as a strict definition?

My point is that I believe you have probably misinterpreted the author and used that as a basis to critisize them, unfairly in my view.

We don't all need to indulge (hey look another one) your personal perspective of how that word should be used.

[ktoo_]

But you didn't say that. You just said I didn't know what 'indulge' means. Although I'm sure the irony of your final quip has escaped you, you have editorialised it into a valid criticism of my take, which I totally accept. Not everyone reads and uses the word with the tone it conveys in my vernacular, and which I'm sure must be, at least implied, in any respectable dictionary definition. Fair enough. Out of curiosity, do you think this is a geo-cultural difference? I am Australian. I imagine most commonwealth and formerly commonwealth countries read it the same way. Where are you from?

[thunky]

> But you didn't say that. You just said I didn't know what 'indulge' means.

Right. My objection was that you projected a negative meaning, which in my view was not demanded by the author. I could be wrong about what the author meant, but I didn't pick up any hint of "incredible weight the attitude of the writer puts on kids". So yes from my perspective that suggested that you probably didn't know the meaning of the word or didn't consider that there was another way to interpret it.

> Although I'm sure the irony of your final quip has escaped you

No, that was the point. The word can be used more than one way.

> Out of curiosity, do you think this is a geo-cultural difference?

Definitely could be. I'm from the US.