I agree the question was poorly worded. But that is neither of our faults. I figured they weren`t asking it right but you can`t blame tecoyah for answering the question as put.Then it's a question without meaning. To ask what "simply is", without referring to the simplicity of the matter, is questioning the existence of the object, or maybe even suggesting that it exists without reason. Neither of which make any sense at all, and have no place in an intellectual debate. Though maybe I'm mistaken and this wasn't an intellectual debate at all.
I don`t think there is anything wrong with rephrasing it to make it more clear, or with your original answer. No need for anyone ot get uppity about it. Though I still don`t think he has worded it in anyway that makes your answer invalid.You are attempting to save face for placing frore us a question that even you feel the need to clarify...attacking others for your own failure to communicate makes you seem a bit ignorant.
But, now that you have moved you goalposts, I will kick again:
Better yet can someone explain what this question has to do with the subject at hand? Seems to be going off on an obscure tangent of minutia.