When I'm assuming that your lack of understanding is rhetorical, it's that I'm assuming bad faith over comprehension difficulties (due to the quality of this forum.) I understand that's not what Hanlon teaches.

-----

edit: so, assuming good faith, saying an adult's writing and opinions are like the opinions of a student going through a phase is, ironically, a childish criticism (especially when directed at a very successful writer and opinion-haver.) If you have or know little kids, you've probably noticed that the first way they speak condescendingly about other little kids is by saying they act like babies. Adults should have more substantial criticisms, based on the claims made. Any of them. Literally any reference to any claim that you're criticizing. That's got to be a minimum standard for being interesting or constructive.

You’ve got multiple ideas all jumbled up here. I’ll give the first part a try.

> When I'm assuming that your lack of understanding is rhetorical, it's that I'm assuming bad faith over comprehension difficulties (due to the quality of this forum.)

Your assuming that I’m writing in bad faith… because of…? And why would the quality of a forum affect your belief in the likelihood of comprehension difficulties in the userbase?

> I understand that's not what Hanlon teaches.

Presumably you mean Hanlon’s razor. If so, what relevance is your understanding of it to the former points?