Yes, it's a technique to argue in bad faith and to shift the burden of proof. And let's see how it applies here...
> 3000 lines of control software? Seems a bit excessive. Why does it need a computer at all?
It really means,
> 3000 lines of control software is unbelievable. It's excessive, it doesn't even need a computer at all!
Sure, it's criticism. But I don't see any bad faith argument here. So I guess "Just asking questions" doesn't apply here.
And from the Guideline,
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
So it's probably the reason for downvoting.
But consider the fact that other readers have already responded to the question/criticism with more information on the author's intention, I think downvoting this is unnecessary.
At risk of causing further dancing on the head of a pin style argument I'd like to point out that contrary to what some people seem to believe it was a sincere question based on my own experience of writing similar control software in an industrial context.
I meant exactly what I said, there was no subtext. I wanted to know the answer and it was provided by icebraining.
If I had intended to say that the number of lines were in actual fact excessive I would have omitted the word seems.
> 3000 lines of control software? Seems a bit excessive. Why does it need a computer at all?
It really means,
> 3000 lines of control software is unbelievable. It's excessive, it doesn't even need a computer at all!
Sure, it's criticism. But I don't see any bad faith argument here. So I guess "Just asking questions" doesn't apply here.
And from the Guideline,
> Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.
So it's probably the reason for downvoting.
But consider the fact that other readers have already responded to the question/criticism with more information on the author's intention, I think downvoting this is unnecessary.