Ah, logic is so boring compared to leaping off the crumbling cliffs of an unsubstantiated conclusion with a make-believe parachute. Just because A is in the B set doesn't mean that it or isn't also in the C set. I know people who took logic in college specifically so they could learn how to advertise to people using illogical techniques i.e. by employing fallacious reasoning to create the appearance of proving a point. I could easily see that as clever and insightful. Then again, there are those who never even bothered with the subject but still insist on having a grasp of it. But I digress from the point of this thread. Seems to me that if one wishes to flirt with G's vague rules based on flawed conclusions, one is liable to end up riding naked down some slippery street, on the back of a straw horse while screaming semantic ambiguities at at a crowd of onlookers (all with cell phones) who will then post the whole affair on YouTube. And then someone else can as the question, "Can I post Google Ads next to my video of a naked guy riding down the street on a...?"
Some conversations are just not worth having.
But then again, I'm a sucker for a meaningless conversation every now and then. So, if titillating Google's review bot/team/cybernetic organism or whatever with borderline content is your thing, then we should definitely discuss the finer points of how to defend yourself with illogical arguments.