alright, let me focus this debate, and show the exact bit that i'm looking for in order to agree with the rulings.

so, back when there were more problems with priority/responding, and i came across the fact that you can respond to the previous chain after it resolves. well i had confused myself and thought that you could respond to any event that occured in that chain. now that i think of it, certain other rulings that i understood the reasoning for actually contradicted my views on responding to a chain. so now i understand that you can only respond to the last action that took place on the previous chain.

so what i need to see is proof of one of the following:

a)that the 2 effects go on the same chain link (which to me wouldn't make sense the way the text is written and if so the text should say something like "if this card is discarded by your own effect special summon it. if this card is discarded by your opponents effect special summon it and..." as that would show that if the opponent did it that its a single effect that is activated)

b)that the effects are 2 separate effects that are triggered simultaneously, in which case proof that the second effect would be forced onto link1 and the special summon effect on link 2 to prevent responding to the special summon. (although this wouldn't make sense, since for goldd the effect is optional and would therefore have to be on the chain 2nd after the first effect. and for sillva it should be the controllers choice of the order since they're both mandatory)

thats it, prove one of those to me and this is over. but the way the rulings are presented, it appears as if the effects take place separately on different chains, which would give you an opportunity to chain to the second effect with a trap in response to the special summon.