Sorry to disagree with you here, but one thing about your argument is just plain wrong. x is shitter than y means that x is worse than y, not that x is bad at all . . . This implies in no way that 'a' is at all good, only that 'b' is more good.
We actually aren't disagreeing but you have to be careful about sentence structure. The syntax you demonstrated is not the syntax that was used in the post. Specifically, the comparitive word "version" which is already an implied comparison was used.
"A is a tall version of B" explicitly means that A is taller than B AND implicitly means that B is not tall. It makes an initial comparitive without using -er.
. . . and -er suffix words are used only in reference to comparing two things or two groups of things . . . the superlative has to be used when making a concurrent comparison of three or more groups.
Yes, but be careful of sentence structure.
"A is a tall version of B, but C is the tallest" is correct structure using a comparison of 3 objects and -est. However, if I throw in the word "version" at the end of the sentence then my comparison changes from 3 objects to only 2 "versions".
"A is a tall version of B, but C is a taller version".
The -er comparitive is now the appropriate one becuase B is not a version and therefore the comparison is between A and C only ("Of the two versions, C is the taller.")
The following pairs of sentences have different meanings
"A is a bad copy of B"
"A is a worse copy of B"
"Maximus is a shitey version of Mamewah."
"Maximus is a shittier version of Mamewah."
The first sentence in each pair implies that the object noun is the oppositie of the subject noun. The second sentence in each pair implies that both subject and object nouns are similar in description but the subject noun, comparitively more so.