I think the mistake was "Superstition implies belief in fate / deity." After reading the whole thing, I guess what they probably meant was dry linguisting commentary, but on first glance it looks like they're saying the person they're replying to is irrational.

Noted.

This is a mistake I used to make. It's fun to pull apart language, but to the person whose language is being analysed, it often feels like mockery. It's important to make it 100% crystal clear your fun analysis isn't about the person. Make it clear it's an aside by focusing on the point before moving on to the postscript with a clear topic shift.

>> It's important to make it 100% crystal clear your fun analysis isn't about the person.

>> If this comment seems personal, that wasn't intended.

That wasn't an edit, it was in my first commit. 100% Crystal clear?

I appreciate you're trying to help but, in doing so please don't belittle my comment as "fun analysis". Though it mightn't have come over perfectly, I meant it. And it's important. To me at least.

You're being too literal about it. I was referring to the policy.