6 ms·

There's no snark in that comment. It is proper and appropriate.

• throwaway894345 4y ago
  Michael's use was congruent with exigency's meaning--there was no reason for samfbiddle to suggest Michael didn't understand the word, particularly while ignoring Michael's actual point (that Officer Turner wasn't the department's spokesperson). samfbiddle's comment was neither proper nor appropriate. Note also that samfbiddle similarly accused another commenter upthread of not reading his article (without evidence) despite that the commenter's criticism was congruent with a reading of the article (i.e., there was no reason for samfbiddle to assume that the critic hadn't read his article, and anyway voicing as much violates the site guidelines).
  • justin66 4y ago
    This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work.
    • throwaway894345 4y ago
      > This is an old, well established pattern, but it is embarrassing that this kind of irrelevant idiocy is so often destined to greet authors and subject matter experts when they visit a message board discussing their work. Yes, this sort of bikeshedding is the cost of clickbait titles--seems like this could all go away if authors/editors stopped using clickbait titles; not sure why we should sneer at the community for highlighting the misleading headline. Moreover, such sneering violates the site guidelines: > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine. Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community. (emphasis mine)