3 ms·

I agree, that I post a lot of snarky replies and that is generally against the rules. But in this case what was the rule I broken? The parent says that they th

by lostmsu 11mo ago

I agree, that I post a lot of snarky replies and that is generally against the rules. But in this case what was the rule I broken? The parent says that they themselves had reservations about having a diagnosis associated with whatever problem they had. I merely pointed out the negative side of the coin ("wasted money") if over diagnosis is the case here (which considering the recent threads on the topic and author's own previous doubt seemed probable to me). I mentioned the author ("you") as the responsible party, because that's what needs to be considered. Otherwise it is easy to defer blame to "the system" and absolve oneselfs from personal responsibility.

dang 11mo ago
There are a bunch of guidelines you broke there. If you want an example, how about ""Have curious conversation; don't cross-examine."" or this one: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." More importantly, though, is a spirit-of-the-law place, not a letter-of-the-law place, so if you're asking for specific rule citations about a comment which obviously was not in the intended spirit of the site, we're already off track a bit.