> Clarifying something in an article in a more clear way than the article did is fine, and especially when even the actual title itself is misleading as well.
That is very true. However, to myself (and presumably the other commenters) it didn’t look like that’s what you were doing. Though I’ll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that was your intention.
In the future, it might help if you also quote the specific part of the article that does the clarification, so it’s clear you’re aware of it and are providing additional context or better wording.
Like I said, I understand and believe you. But clearly that’s not what most commenters understood so I proposed how you could’ve made that clearer and not have to keep clarifying and getting downvoted.
It was simply a suggestion. You can take it or leave it, it’s all the same to me.
Holy moly, you’re one unreasonably angry individual. You do realise you’re lashing out at someone who said repeatedly they believed you and was polite about it, right?
I’d suggest perhaps closing Hacker News for the day but I get the feeling you’ll find some way to be insulted at that as well, so instead I’ll just wish you a better week than you’re having so far.
That is very true. However, to myself (and presumably the other commenters) it didn’t look like that’s what you were doing. Though I’ll certainly give you the benefit of the doubt and trust that was your intention.
In the future, it might help if you also quote the specific part of the article that does the clarification, so it’s clear you’re aware of it and are providing additional context or better wording.