I'm sorry for making assumptions about your line of thought, but you've done the same to multiple other people in this very thread

Communicating without assumptions is laborious, perhaps impossible. I was annoyed at you for stating assumptions about my emotional state, especially in a dismissive manner.

You appear -- and I'm trying hard not to assume this so please correct me if my interpretation of your writing is incorrect -- you appear to be saying that anyone on PerlMonks should be assumed to be ready for the most straightforward explanation

It appears that you may be way over-thinking this. I saw an explanation given that included unnecessary complication and that complication also had the distinct disadvantage of having lead other people into problems. I pointed out the conflict in this added complication. The author didn't understand. I tried to highlight the trouble with it a different way. Not much to this.

When points were expressed to refute my assertions about these conflicts or to criticize the accuracy of my explanations, then I responded to them. Several other criticism and arguments were also thrown in that I tried to mostly ignore. The assertion of there being advocation of "there is one true abstraction" was one such tangential point made and I already noted that I have not been proposing such. So, no, I'm not proposing "one true explanation" to be used for any PerlMonk.

As for the rest of your post above, I have read it. It mostly convinces me that you did not "get" most of my points (which, just to be clear, is not something I would choose to blame you for) and so futher discussion seems unlikely to result in an increase of understanding between us so I will likely choose to not spend more time on such.