> Sorry to be a downer but basically every statement you’ve made above is incorrect.
You don't need to apologize for being a "downer", but it would be better if you were specific in your criticisms.
I welcome feedback, but it has to be specific and actionable. If I'm wrong, set me straight.
This is a two-way street: if you were unfair or uncharitable or wrong, you have to own that too. It is incumbent upon an intellectually honest reader to first seek a plausible interpretation under which a statement is indeed correct. Some people have a tendency to only find one possible interpretation under which a statement is wrong. This is insufficient. Bickering over interpretations is less useful; understanding another's meaning is how we grow.
> Sorry to be a downer but basically every statement you’ve made above is incorrect.
You don't need to apologize for being a "downer", but it would be better if you were specific in your criticisms.
I welcome feedback, but it has to be specific and actionable. If I'm wrong, set me straight.
This is a two-way street: if you were unfair or uncharitable or wrong, you have to own that too. It is incumbent upon an intellectually honest reader to first seek a plausible interpretation under which a statement is indeed correct. Some people have a tendency to only find one possible interpretation under which a statement is wrong. This is insufficient. Bickering over interpretations is less useful; understanding another's meaning is how we grow.