Possibly by "his" you mean me, so I perhaps owe an explanation. I thought the point Mithaldu was making was sufficiently obvious. Instead of a title signaling the contents of the article in a straightforward manner, a more sensational sounding title was chosen. A step along the path to "Click here to learn the one amazing simple free education trick expensive US universities don't want you to know about". But the responses to Mithaldu seemed to think he was quibbling about whether a trivial amount of money was the same as free or not. I didn't think he was, something he has subsequently confirmed. Hope that helps.
>Instead of a title signaling the contents of the article in a straightforward manner, a more sensational sounding title was chosen.
That's because the title should also get you to want to READ the article, and do it in 10 words or less.
But that doesn't mean it was click-bait and certainly not to the degree of titles like "amazing simple education trick" etc. If it was a "step along that path" it was a very very small step.
I have upvoted you, you make a good point. I commented originally because it was clear to me what Mithaldu was saying but others were misunderstanding his point. It was not really so much about whether his point is correct or not.
I think the only conclusion to draw here is that you are exceptionally brilliant. You were the one to live up OP's idea of the intellect of this site. Why write more explicitly and less confusingly when we have brilliant people like yourself to decipher things?
My comments having been very measured and calm. I have simply stated my understanding and tried to reduce unnecessary confusion. I was not explicit when I didn't think I needed to be, but did respond positively when asked to be explicit. I have never been confusing. I don't think I deserve to be attacked.
