No, it's one thing to say that you didn't intend certain implications, but another thing entirely to say that the implications aren't there.
For example, if we had been discussing dogs vs. cats, you might say "dogs bark," "dogs can herd sheep," "dogs can't retract their claws," and all of these imply that cats don't bark, don't herd sheep, but do retract their claws.
You don't say "dogs have fur," "dogs nurse their young," "dogs are warm-blooded" because in that context it inexorably implies that cats don't have fur, don't nurse their young, and are cold-blooded.
The English language has certain natural usages, and you can't just say, "well, it means what I want it to mean" unless you expect us to think that you're a character in a Lewis Carroll novel. |
