I never said that you were wrong or that either of them were right or factual. I wondered why you seemed to take offense at Zulu turning the question around, when that's a technique often used in discussion to open up new avenues of inquiry. As a scholar, I also found Dee's phrasing interesting and wanted to know more about why she chose those words and what she wanted to discover. It's a fact that Dee's question was binary, allowing for a yes or no answer, and that her follow-up question did not reveal what sort of information she was interested in obtaining (which is obviously also valid - the respondent doesn't need total knowledge to respond, and that can make responses more interesting).

I found neither question difficult to interpret; I found intention ambiguous. I was pleased to read people's responses with their justification, and I was pleased to see that Dee's curiosity was well-informed by current linguistics project and interested to know the results.