Whoops, didn't make myself clear.

Not at all, I was just playing with the 'status - offence' concept, teasing out another naunce that technically answers your question while also informing on a topic that fascinates me. ;)

I of course agree with your analysis, below:

Since the article makes a statement, I'm trying to take it to its logical conclusion; in particular to see what outcomes it prohibits, as per <that other article I forgot>. And non-status-based offenses do seem like an obvious thing it prohibits.

Good point. Offence does seem to be a social thing and I cannot offhand think of any instances that are exceptions but such instances would definitely make a lie of the statement. Well, at least make a lie of any claim it could make to being a fully general description.