So by your description, if it was really about how Daft Punk 'created' that sample, the article would just be a description of how they plugged a record player into a sampler and pressed the record button.
I guess it sounds like you're pretending not to understand what is a fairly simple linguistic ambiguity, in order to start and then win a boring argument.
No one, and I mean absolutely no one, is confused about what it means to sample a song, or to create a sample, or to take a sample from a song. That would be a tedious semantic argument of no value.
So most people interpret would instead interpret it as snide commentary on the illegitimacy of sampling as an art.
Even if you didn't read that, you must at some point come to the conclusion the word "sample" is a bit ambiguous and might have many contexts and uses wouldn't you?
Trying to make yourself feel smart by making a witty one liner, which in all fairness was unjustified, won't win you any awards.
Which it clearly isn't.
Hence my first comment.