I suppose that's a valid interpretation, but again, the purpose of the phrasing is to (slightly, help) change the status quo, so most of us are not batting an eye if it doesn't 100% reflect the status quo; the commenter may or may not have meant to collude 'most' with the non-typical, but it literally makes no difference.
An alternative perspective is that the original commenter is doing the authors a favour by highlighting that their writing is currently easily misinterpreted and would benefit from revision.
That is your interpretation of the original comment, not even close to a direct quote (and I'm sure many would take it as a gross distortion of what was actually said).
Obviously you and I interpreted the original comment very differently.
Well, it's apparently the correct interpretation according to the author (see sibling comment.) I don't think expressing sentiment in addition to the point makes that sentiment the point.
I don't see that mean, it matches the impression I have from transfire's comment. Nobody is saying that transfire's comment fully reflects the person who made it, but based only on the comment, it is an appropriate response, as far as I see it.
The last line shows their intention is good faith and on the side of the common people. There’s no proper way to interpret their comment as a bad faith making fun of people.
The comment happens to be against the status quo and for the every day person and that has a higher chance as being seen as something that is unusual and more negative than it actually is.
It appears they are just using an alternative phrasing without making comment, but if they were actually making a comment then wouldn’t the overall objection be “not to read too much into the wording”, but that is a catch 22. Objecting to someone taking wording too seriously to the point of changing the wording is in itself taking the wording too seriously.
Perhaps. But supplying a one-word correction which requires you to already understand the context fully to be able to interpret it, is difficult to see as anything but pointless pedantry, despite trying.
The only people to understand the comment, are the ones it won't help.
I think people are just making a normal, perfectly correct and reasonable observation that the description was misleading, because it really was.
But the hallmark of many internet comment threads is to try and get additional mileage out the conversation by subjecting said reasonable observations to the ritual exercise of switcheroos, contrarianism, idiosyncratic distinctions and unusual interpretations. Which leads to the original wisdom being repeated, which makes it seem like it's being blown out of proportion.
But I think the simpler explanation is just that it's a correct observation and that it's not that complicated.
Interpretations inevitably differ, but I don't think those comments come close to matching your descriptions and I can't imagine that most users would either. They seem tediously neutral to me.
Thanks for clarifying the helpful intention behind the comment. That does make sense. Probably all it needed to do was make the intention a bit more explicit, so it wouldn't be mistaken for one-upmanship.
By the way, your reply was so neutral and respectful that I didn't realize you were the original commenter. That's remarkable, so thank you.
Sure! It's solely based on my experience with commenters, who sometimes view statements like that as endorsements or as indicators that personal beliefs align with those who are being quoted or described.
reply