You say you understand, but the second part of your statement indicates that you don't. What I'm puzzled by is, why did you feel the need to suggest that the c

You say you understand, but the second part of your statement indicates that you don't. What I'm puzzled by is, why did you feel the need to suggest that the comment in question can be considered an attack on someone, when it is clear (to the both of us, as you point out), that it isn't so? Edit: I say this because I always think about this guideline before I comment: > Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.