[yots]

No, not all of us. I didn't read the comment just fine either. I assumed a person who uses irrelevant misogynist slurs may have a personal grudge against the person he's insulting, so I'm not going to take anything he says about her very seriously.

[cup-of-tea]

Wait, misogynistic? You think "rackless" was a comment about her body? If it was that would be strange and innapropriate. I didn't read it that way and it didn't occur to me before this comment. I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt that it wasn't meant to be that because it would be so unexpected.

[yots]

If this wasn't OP's intention, I deeply apologize. That was my understanding and I think it was m12k's too. I'm used to seeing civil discussion here and that's what made me dismissive of the original comment.

[m12k]

> If it was that would be strange and innapropriate

Yes, that was my thought too, hence why I asked them if that was indeed what they meant by it. An archaic/dialectic spelling of reckless is strange too though, so I'm not really sure which is more likely. Just out of curiosity - if it only just now occurred to you that 'rackless' could refer to her body, then what did you think I was calling the comment out for?

[cup-of-tea]

I thought you were one of those overly sensitive types that got offended easily. You never know these days.

It's funny because it says a lot about some people who immediately thought it was a comment about breasts rather than either a typo, alternatively spelling or rack referring to data centre technology (on a technology site).

[alien_at_work]

> irrelevant misogynist slurs

Has the OP confirmed that this is what the phrase meant? Because otherwise you're projecting meaning on something that may not have been intended (again, I have the back ground to recognize this kind of slur but I didn't see it in the original comment until it was pointed out). Why would you do that?