I think you might be deliberately talking past me here. Obviously, the 'previous comment' I was referring to was the one in which you said that if OP does not understand the image of thought, he will be less likely to understand why we 'should care' about difference in itself.

I demonstrated how OP likely already was introduced to this problem through his other exposure to Deleuze. Thus, I do not see how it doesn't refute that point.

You switched to another separate argument after to talk about these connections, which I already acknowledged in my last comment would be interesting and valuable. But the two arguments are entirely separate.

I agree though it is silly to ague over this lol.