3 ms·

Actually the rule (guideline) is the inverse: "Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" ca

Actually the rule (guideline) is the inverse: "Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." " It's fine to comment without reading/viewing the submission, and I'm sure many of us do :) Although, I am curious as to why kikoreis doesn't use YouTube?

shawabawa3 9y ago
> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article Sure, but if they explicitly say they haven't read it, then make a wrong assumption about it, surely you can call them out
- freeloop10 9y ago
  I don't see any rule supporting that conclusion.
  - monsieurbanana 9y ago
    That's not how it works, there's no rule stating you can't do it.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - recursive 9y ago
    I don't see any rule allowing you to comment on whether any rules support a conclusion.
dahart 9y ago
> It's fine to comment without reading/viewing the submission, and I'm sure many of us do :) That lack of a written guideline does not make it okay or a good idea to comment on the article based only on the headline like the GP did. Fine if you're responding to other people on other topics, but positing a straw man argument against your imagination of the article's contents without reading it, the comment will be rightly downvoted. The guideline you posted is not the inverse, the guideline you posted is suggesting it's best to not make assumptions. Posting about the article content without viewing it is making assumptions.
irishsultan 9y ago
It's not insinuating if it was already stated by the person you're responding to. Notice also how in the example there is a question "Did you read the article?", in the comment you reply to there is also a question, but neither of them insinuates something (well, the second maybe insinuates that the user is doing something against the rules, but I can't really see any rule explicitly ruling that out)

shawabawa3 9y ago

> Please don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article Sure, but if they explicitly say they haven't read it, then make a wrong assumption about it, surely you can call them out

freeloop10 9y ago
I don't see any rule supporting that conclusion.
- monsieurbanana 9y ago
  That's not how it works, there's no rule stating you can't do it.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- recursive 9y ago
  I don't see any rule allowing you to comment on whether any rules support a conclusion.

dahart 9y ago

> It's fine to comment without reading/viewing the submission, and I'm sure many of us do :) That lack of a written guideline does not make it okay or a good idea to comment on the article based only on the headline like the GP did. Fine if you're responding to other people on other topics, but positing a straw man argument against your imagination of the article's contents without reading it, the comment will be rightly downvoted. The guideline you posted is not the inverse, the guideline you posted is suggesting it's best to not make assumptions. Posting about the article content without viewing it is making assumptions.

irishsultan 9y ago

It's not insinuating if it was already stated by the person you're responding to. Notice also how in the example there is a question "Did you read the article?", in the comment you reply to there is also a question, but neither of them insinuates something (well, the second maybe insinuates that the user is doing something against the rules, but I can't really see any rule explicitly ruling that out)