The first X was in quotes, so it was a purely lexical reference to the words themselves, without referring to any conventional meaning that those words might have. The second X was unquoted and so by that I meant to convey the usual meaning in English.
Another way of saying it would have been: erm right but experience of Javascript is not experience of Clojure, regardless of any influence Clojure may have had on modern Javascript.
OK. But you didn't ask him to describe his Clojure experience, you just asked whether he was speaking from Clojure experience -- and he said that yes, he was. Asked and answered?
No, on the contrary, I understood his/her reply to be saying that he/she had not used Clojure, but that its influence on the Javascript ecosystem was such that a user of modern Javascript could consider themselves to have "experience of Clojure" in a sense.
We don't have to carry on debating it, but have another read of the reply in question -- I think you'll agree that it was in fact saying that they did not have any experience of Clojure; only of Clojure-influenced Javascript.
