If you enjoyed both then you wouldn't bother specifying it, OR expect that people who do understand english would not be able to understand you.
What if you enjoy both but one more than the other? Does that case simply not exist in your world?
He didn't use the word hate, but it's an antonym of enjoy. Which he implied in the way he wrote the sentence.
All right, so not doing something automatically implies the antonym, gotcha. That's flawless reasoning. I am not searching for my remote control, so I am hiding it. The glass isn't empty, so it is full. You're not my husband, so you're my wife.
Ah, so it's ok to bully the person who bothers to learn english. Gotcha.
I'm asking you why we should care what you think. No one agrees with you and you haven't been able to make a single reasonable point in your favor, so the question is an honest call for you to give us sufficient reason to care about your opinion, not made with the intention to bully.
No it's not safe to infer that, but your analogies aren't relevant as they don't cover the "without ...".
But that shouldn't matter, since the antonym of "enjoy" is "hate," right? Your reasoning isn't only flawless, it's consistent too, right? Let's for a moment assume your magical system of logic, though, and think of some more examples that further cement your impeccable reasoning and outstanding comprehension of English. How about: I enjoy walking without a particular destination, I enjoy drinking soda without a straw, I enjoy resting without a care in the world and I enjoy bathing without bath salts. Again, all apply to me and of course I absolutely hate going places, drinking soda without a straw, having responsibilities and bath salts. Those are obviously the worst things I can think of! Can you help me with this English language thing now?
It must be fun setting up your own personal system of semantics with convoluted criteria that no one else agrees with just to be rude to someone on an Amiga forum. The fact remains that this is what *you* think, and I can only imagine the awkward situations you must have ended up in throughout your life if you actually apply this consistently.
Words mean something, it's impossible to know if someone used the wrong words or meant what they wrote. If you're vague then don't get defensive if someone questions what you meant. It's pretty pointless to guess what someone means and then argue that that is what they definitely meant.
You didn't question what he meant. You decided that he meant that he hated the Indivision and asked a different question based on that assumption. Even after Niding explained what he meant you insist on your esoteric interpretation although no one else does. Again, you're the outlier here, and the basis of language is consensus.
