I’m not sure where you got this form of communication where you respond to everything with a question, and I assume you mean well, but it comes across as patronizing and de-humanizing to try to follow these “rules to winning arguments passively”, or whatever it is.
Indeed, the confusion here is (I think) because your first comment
> Sorry for asking, but how is this relevant to the article?
> PS: how something “sounds” is really difficult to say in a written medium. It might say more about the reader than the writer.
No, it’s not difficult. And not it’s not the reader. When multiple readers all agree about the same interpretation of the writer.
It might have been unintentional on the part of the writer, but that doesn’t make it “difficult”
Or the readers fault.
I think what youre trying to encourage is open ended discussion? It's my opinion that this only tends to work IRL or in online mediums with more moderation e.g. wikipedia, stackoverflow.
Random open ended discussion can be good, but I bet it's wise to assume tht most random musings arent really as interesting as you might think.
