I’m very confused…you asked what breaks someone was referring to, r/pixeljammer pointed out the breaks in question. You then asked “But why does it matter whether PR people know how the breaks will be perceived with regards to whether we acknowledge the breaks or not?“ and r/pixeljammer replied directly, saying “You would think so, but it's not the case”, continuing on in their explanation of why that isn’t the case. You replied with “I would think so about what?

The only part of my sentence that this phrase could be a response to was when I said "Presumably PR people try to predict reactions to everything no matter what" or when I said "That seems completely orthogonal to whether we take note of them doing it".

So are you claiming that it merely seems like PR people would try to predict reactions to things or are you claiming that it merely seems like PR people would do that regardless whether we take note of it?

I don't mind having a discussion with you about this but if you start every response mid-thought, it becomes almost impossible to talk about anything.” They started their response by answering your question. So….How are you confused?