Partial quoting? I quoted the relevant bit. I may as well accuse you of partial quoting too since you "only" quoted one sentence and not the surrounding sentenc

Partial quoting? I quoted the relevant bit. I may as well accuse you of partial quoting too since you "only" quoted one sentence and not the surrounding sentences. > But the burden is on you to update it make it clear what you're referring to. Not when I can't edit the comment anymore. When I edited my comment to say the title has been changed, the title had just been changed to say "SMS OTP" instead of "OTP", so it was still (I thought) clear what my comment was about. By the time I saw the post had had its more dramatic title change, my comment was past the edit period. And yes, I do think it's unfair that you're accusing me of misquoting and writing an incorrect comment, when my comment was perfectly correct when written, and when it's impossible for me to "fix" it later (not to mention I didn't even know the title had been edited again until I saw your comment). > But I think even without that, you went on to make a point counter the article using article text as if it was a valid counterpoint is wrong. I did not use the article text as if it was a counterpoint. I used the article text to illustrate that the article was talking specifically about SMS OTP, and that the article did not even attempt to address non-SMS-based TOTP. And then gave my own opinion, which is that non-SMS-based TOTP is much better than SMS OTP and has some benefits as compared to a physical U2F device. Since the article didn't even address non-SMS-based TOTP, it can't be a point either for or against that opinion, but what it could be was context.