CureCat said:

Cervantes said:

What am I missing here?

---

If anything, I would say that you are missing the point that "strain", as compared with phenotypes, are not interchangeable.

"Strain" is a vague term out of context.  If one fails to define what they mean by "strain" then multiple interpretations may arise, leading to a lot of the misuse and confusion over the word, as seen in a lot of strain discussion threads. 

By failing to identify any qualitative meaning to the label, vendors may take the opportunity to invent new strains, and often describe a list of desirable traits that may or may not actually be passed down to future generations. 
Some vendors may not actually even be aware of the debate, and those who are find themselves between a rock and a hard place, whether to decide what really counts as a strain and risk losing business, or to play competitively with the 'strain game' like all of the other vendors, since the n00bs eat that shit up.

When someone says "a cube is a cube", what is usually meant is that all of these "strains" are really contrived and do not represent an actual clade within the species P. cubensis.  Some may have different attributes, but they can all cross with one another.

I have spent a lot of time considering this.  I am not inclined to argue your points, since I agree for the most part, however I think that you have constructed some sort of working definition for the term that is not shared by myself or RR or any of the "cube is a cube" proponents.

So then, how would you define "strain"?  If we are going to continue this debate, I think we need to establish some rules of the game.

---