C'mon 'blansky'... You're still doing it. As are the others.
It really DOES illustrate the point. But to see that one cannot overlay the literal meaning of the assertion with layer upon layer of their own pejorative interpretations.
No matter how many people might really, really want to believe that a silver photographic print is a crayon drawing, it's not. They can come up with a gazillion reasons why they are convinced that it really is a crayon drawing. But when all is said and done... it's not.
A silver print is still just a silver print. A crayon drawing is still just a crayon drawing. And an inkjet print is still just an inkjet print. (And by the same reasoning, a dog is still just a dog and a cat is still just a cat.) Things are what they just are. And calling them exactly what they just are, and recognizing that they are exactly what you just called them, is not a pejorative exercise.
To call an inkjet print just an inkjet says absolutely nothing about it's quality, or it's desirability, or it's difficulty to produce, or it's worth. What it says is... it's just an inkjet print. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Until, that is, the reader begins to overlay their own pejorative interpretations. Also known as reading between the lines. Also known as creating assumptions. Also known as hearing only what they want to hear.
If he said 'it's just an inkjet print' then he must really be trying to say it's inferior. Well, I know he didn't actually SAY that. But I just know that's what he really MEANS...
So tell me, if I can't call an inkjet print an inkjet print without offending people who like inkjet prints, just what the hell am I supposed to call it?