Or you're the worst apologizer in the world, jesus christ, go read a tutorial or something.
And no your point doesn't stand. The defensiveness about it being exactly alike would matter if it was an analogy, but you did not make an analogy. Non-analogies do have to match, and that is not an unreasonable standard.
How about you quit being such a pedant. An example is not supposed to be exactly the same in every way. It doesn't even need to be mostly the same. It can be only kinda sorta maybe related and that's ok. It's just an example.
Somehow analogies an examples came to mean perfect clones. That's not what they are.
You don't need to apologize, but a fake apology serves no purpose except to annoy people.
A fake apology that claims "genuine remorse" is extra annoying.
> How about you quit being such a pedant. An example is not supposed to be exactly the same in every way. It doesn't even need to be mostly the same. It can be only kinda sorta maybe related and that's ok. It's just an example.
Examples do need to be the same. That's the point of examples, they show what something is.
You can have "an example of something related", but that's not evidence of whatever it's related to. It's ancillary information.
This isn't pedantry, this is how you explain things and argue points. I can't fix an incorrect example by steelmanning your argument, the way I could ignore an actual issue of pedantry.
On the other side, an analogy doesn't have to be related at all, but it takes significantly more to set up. A connects to B the same way that X connects to Y. It looks very different from an example.
The SEC's existence doesn't change that. It's like saying we have a EPA and a ATF. But those aren't consumer protection agencies either.