Maybe next time, try saying "It doesn't do what I personally need a truck for" rather than "It's not really a truck" if you think it fits the definition of a truck but doesn't do what you personally need a truck for.

that sentiment was in my main post. I even said "nor do I consider"

you're deliberately focusing on the phrasing instead of the substance of my post so you don't have to talk about my point.

You know what? I think I kind of agree with you. At least the cybertruck is a stupid vehicle which I'd be comfortable saying pretends to be a truck without doing any of the things a person who needs a truck needs their truck to do.

I think gating the definition of "truck" behind "not electric" is stupid, which is what I thought you were doing (and to be honest, your comment is worded to make that a reasonable interpretation); but if you just meant "these trucks are stupid and don't do what I need a truck to do" then I can't disagree.

thank you, that's pretty much my reasoning.

I one day hope that EV trucks will be useful to me to replace my ICE truck, but for me none of them hit the boxes.

some of them are logistical in relation to charging vs having an extra can of gas though, so it's hard to say.

You need to understand that you are not the arbiter of definitions.

You're going to say "I wasn't trying to be" yet your rhetoric above contradicts that.

would you like to reply to my points or continue to attack the phrasing of one sentence?

don't worry, I don't have the power to change definitions, you can rest at ease.