[nkurz]

than a lack of reader charity

I'm sorry if that came across as accusing. I meant to imply that the author would benefit from more charitable language, not that the reader had failed to supply it. I now see that it could also be read the other way.

[tomlock]

Yeah sorry, my interpretation probably comes from philosophy where people are often told to take a "charitable" interpretation of the text they're reading.

I think we agree.