Yes sir, I honestly do. It is not my job to "interpret" a poster's "intent" or psychically "divine" their "personal definition" in a text-based medium. We have to go with what he actually wrote.
The question was "can my Mac get a virus from my PC via the iPod Touch?"
The answer is "no." Even if you expand the definition of "virus" to include non-viruses, the answer is still "no."
To go beyond that level of answer, in my very honest opinion (and after two decades of working with Mac clients including time at Apple itself), requires giving the WHOLE answer: a detailed, in-depth explanation. What's a virus, what is malware, how are they different, what EXACTLY is the risk and so forth.
Your own answer, with all due respect, was just as flippant as you perceive printerman's answer to be. Your post can easily be read as "printerman is wrong, you are at risk, but don't worry your pretty little head about it." Whereas printerman's answer is read as "no."
I know which one of those two answers I think is the better one. Unless you're prepared to go into the weeds with details, sometimes the concise reply is the "right" one.
(this is also known as the "Riker vs. Data" debate, btw)
Again I don't mean to be argumentative; but in a text-based medium, nuance and interpretation are very much in the eye of the beholder. I feel sincerely it is often best to answer the question literally and briefly. One can leave the door open for a follow-up if there is room for non-literal interpretation, of course, but on the whole the OP's first question was a yes-or-no question.