Firstly, it could be argued that a question that requires a two-part answer, is, by definition, not a simple question.
Secondly, AFAICT, this post is the first time you have asserted in so many words that you see the question as requiring a two-part answer. I don’t see that UncleBeer is obliged to make that assumption, if it is not explicitly stated.
Believe me, I’m more sympathetic to your position in this overall argument than I am to his. But, on the subject of things getting stuck in craws, it sticks in mine a little when someone is being accused of evading a question, when the slightest legitimate variance in the reading of the question can absolve the person of the charge; and when with only a little effort, you can acknowledge the fact of the original answer, and pose the second part of it explicitly. Do that, and you can hold UncleBeer’s feet to the fire. I won’t say a word.
Be advised, however, that you may be operating with different qualitative definitions of the word “punitive.”
It *could * be argued as you say, perhaps, but not by someone who has graduated from elementary school.
If you can show where the punishment (which is inherent in the word “punitive”, you could look it up and save yourself a lot of time) is occurring, or where **Unc ** showed it for that matter, go right ahead. Otherwise you need to get a fucking grip.
Gatsby was a self made man - self made probably by some combination of graft and or theft (Gatsby’s friend and business partner Meyer Wolfsheim is supposedly based on the guy who fixed the World Series) - a man incapable of enjoying his own wealth because he only aquired it in order to get a woman - he doesn’t even attend his own parties. Now the Buchanan’s - you have a point.