I don't see it that way. The reply chooses to understand the writing in the context of its writer's psychology, and presents reasons for doing so. This does n

I don't see it that way. The reply chooses to understand the writing in the context of its writer's psychology, and presents reasons for doing so. This does not mean that the replier cannot consider the writing independently of the writer. You can build a closet in the woods, but usually it doesn't make much sense unless it's accompanied by a house. You can interpret ideas while willfully obscuring other facts about the ideator, but usually it doesn't make much sense unless it's accompanied by the antecedents and consequences found among those obscurable facts. Kaczynski's life demonstrates that there was something really messed up about his thinking.