[Brian_K_White]

If you're smart enough to construct this analysis and critique, then you're smart enough to have reached the same conclusion the parent and I did.

I'm not charitable, it's just what made sense, like mentally fixing a typo instead of acting like you don't know, and can't figure out from context what someone meant just because they flubbed a letter or a word or something.

[lolinder]

When a letter gets flubbed, it's nearly always possible to correct it from context alone. When a word is missing, it's sometimes possible to retrieve the original meaning but other times the missing word creates an ambiguity and you have to just pick a meaning. Faced with the ambiguity, your brain jumped in one direction, mine in another. You landed on the correct answer, I didn't, but there's no need to imply that my reconstruction was done in bad faith.

[nextaccountic]

> I'm not charitable, it's just what made sense, like mentally fixing a typo instead of acting like you don't know, and can't figure out from context what someone meant just because they flubbed a letter or a word or something.

I mean, that's just what's called in Philosophy the principle of charity [0]. When evaluating a claim you should read it in its best light, which include glossing over minor inaccuracies and going straight to the main point.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity