If this tirade is in response to my comments (where I said in specific response to your remarks about 'ambiguity' -- emphasis now added: "...one of the most interesting features is very often ambiguity"), then I must lower my estimate of your ability to read simple English. What is it about "one of" or "very often" that you don't understand?
When you complained about ambiguity, I addressed the value of ambiguity. Nowhere did I drop the slightest hint that ambiguity is the only way a photograph may engage a viewer.
I can only feel a kind of sorrow for anyone who can so misread the comments of others.
Oh hogwash. Read the flow of comments. I didn't complain
about ambiguity, I asked why everyone assumed every photo had to be ambiguous. Your response had nothing to do with any other qualities of photographs except your silly explanation of the importance of ambiguity. I am fully convinced by the full context of your comments that until I pointed out otherwise, you were convinced all photographs had to have ambiguity in order to engage the viewer in - what did you call it? - "creative work." Then you went into a whole additional paragraph about how ambiguity serves those who prefer variety and so on. Clearly, you have assume that "ambiguity" is the central theme of a good photograph!
Ambiguity is by no means the central point of interest in even most of the world's most influential photographs. It deserves nothing but a mention in a long list of possible qualities in a photograph. So no, I haven't misread anything. You simply aren't all that happy now with how those comments in retrospect.
And rebutting your argument about ambiguity isn't a tirade. That's just how many words it happens to take. You two need to get off your high horses and stop all this pretense about things you can't even explain.