I gave them the benefit of the doubt explicitly and reminded them of the rules - what more do you want?

Their reply shows I was wrong to give the benefit of the doubt and that they really need a reminder of the rules. Feel free to come up with more “no it’s you” replies if you like but they’re unhelpful, unwanted, unwarranted, and directed towards the wrong person.

You should follow the rules when you're attempting to claim someone else is not following the rules.

> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.

I didn't dismiss anything, nor did I take the weakest plausible interpretation - I followed up by asking for a clarification.

Anything else you would like my help with?

Edit: Ah! I see now. You're bothered by my response to you the other day https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730545

That's childish. Please, go and play somewhere else.

I didn't even see your reply until you brought it up. More often than not for things like that I'll drop my perspective and leave. Otherwise if I took umbrage with your comment I would've actually replied which since you seemed to look through my post history you can also see I'm not one to shy away from an argument for better or worse.

But it seems like you're not interested in sticking to the rules yourself funnily enough. If you want to assume there was some grand conspiracy instead of me just reading a thread and seeing a bad remark by all means.

> But it seems like you're not interested in sticking to the rules yourself funnily enough.

Telling someone they appear to be breaking the rules and then asking them to clarify (something they refused to do or walk back) is uncharitable?

What is the best way to interpret that comment? I'd love to hear.