Strange that Don Magee had to go through great lengths to explain the basic premise of sparring. Why would one have to use analytical deduction to explain the basic fundamentals of sparring. The science of sparring is not new. The reasons for sparring are not new. I think the whole issue is more about a mentality that has crept into the psyche of some. Honesty is always the best policy. Others love sparring and the hope is to learn and grow from the experience.
I don't think it's so strange...but I'm often a little bit strange so maybe it's all relative. I know he's repeated himself quite a bit in an effort to reiterate his meaning, but that's the nature of these forums. There are slight variations in meaning. Words, as symbols for our meanings, are highly subjective and thus subject to individual interpretation. Sometimes you have to cover a lot of ground to reach common understanding...and even then people tend to read based more on their own perceptions than trying to understand others...and sometimes people just miss each other's meaning outright.
If you don't want to spar, if you don't like sparring, simply say I don't want to spar or I don't like it.
Because it's not often being put forth in this way. The problem arises when people say one way is better than another and that others should do as they do. Sincerely meant or antagonistic (I don't think Don is antagonistic) this is where simple ideas expand into huge threads than never die (despite people complaining on said threads about how they never die
As an aside: I got a funny response a while back when I tried to apply Aikido to communication, but I still think the sharing of ideals and ideas tends to be one of the most important places we can evaluate our training. Physical interaction is relatively easy in my view; it's thoughts and feelings which get sticky and demand the highest focus, patience, and discipline.