It is not ambiguous: if we are as strict and logical as grammar allows us to be, it is rather indefinite, which in a sense may be worse, but then you don't seem to be bothered by that in what you write: you only seem capable, are only interested in definite, binary, black-and-white, simplistic logic.
It is ambiguous, that is, has two definite possible meanings, only if you take for granted grammar in its strictness, and just believe in the assumption that the derived, secondary sense, as the "real", fundamental one. People usually use that expression to talk about what they have already experience, forgetting what it actually points to, without the added assumptions.
It just says "it" "is difficult", and that "it" is a mere action outside of time, outside actuality, so it is not actually a definite circumstance included in a vague, ambiguous statement that may necessary confuse you. True that everything happens in time and in a location, but as long as it is not definite, you can not say you are confused by some particular options when none of them has been actually defined to make you confused.
So it can be taken to say that, only as far as anything "can be taken" to say anything.
Then what you say about being open to options shows that you mistake being open to everything to having preferences.
It is precisely because I have been naturally open to what others do not seem so open, for example having escorts as sex partners, that I feel disappointment and insatisfaction more deeply. People naturally limited in their preferences and actions, apart from keeping a judgmental attitude that makes them feel and believe that people whom they do not understand, because their options are so different from their own, are in the wrong, rather than their own limited view of the world, including those other "wrong" people.
The defensiveness, as least in this thread, came only when I was frivolously attacked by being put "in the wrong" as an explanation for what may be well wrong outside of me, according to your own logic, that however you do not seem to take as "open" in its possibilities, and restrict only to the case in which I am the one in the wrong... merely because the consequences of what I [STRIKE]write[/STRIKE] say shock you?
You can not even be said to be "in denial" because you seem to have closed yourself to the possibility that there is something wrong to be found outside people like me, inside people like you, for example, that you do not deny it, you simply can not even start fathoming it to then go denying it.
All your posts so far in this thread show the same mental vagueness and fluffy condition. People like you can wander about touching this and that without being aware of anything they touch, and feel a barrier, a "closure" as you point to in my case, when that something retains their usually vapid attention and they feel forced to stop and consider something, that they then can only take as a closure.
Taz reads like a bee that enjoys going from flower to flower, but finds an unspeakably outrageous burden to carry pollen from them to go do something... and whatever sticks to him by mere inertia, and happily happens to pollinate somewhere, he takes as proof that what I have just wrote there is plain wrong.
The last part of your post is yet another proof of your muddle head: yes, of course they are two different questions, but you seem to imply that we should confuse them..?
The funnier part is that you end proposing, as an advance, a question that is already past behind the point of the thread and, to make it even richer, using the same indefiniteness or, as you said, the "ambiguous" expression you pointed in the OP, that is, you use a "can", which "can" be used to mean "could I find", and that is where you would be a question behind, not forward the original question of this thread.
Maybe you should have asked me to ask "where ARE all the pretty light-haired guys"?
wtf?
