This wasn't snark. It's pointing out a real problem with the premise of this article. It's creating a narrative of adjunct professor exploitation based on anec

This wasn't snark. It's pointing out a real problem with the premise of this article. It's creating a narrative of adjunct professor exploitation based on anecdotal cases. For all we know, these anecdotes are outliers and their situation isn't due to their profession or its pay. I could have said all that or I could have been concise. Is being concise snark?