Editing Openai/6973e373-2b8c-800d-84b7-d7001cfc6bac (section)

==== ### ====

Original claim (Greg): “Reading on a smartphone is a NO.”
This can mean two different things:
# Personal preference claim: “I don’t want to read this on my phone.”
# Universal/standard claim: “This is not phone-readable / shouldn’t be this long because phones exist.”

Your added material mainly pressures (2), not (1).

Standing objections against the universal/standard version now include:
* OP’s earlier workaround: bookmark/read later.
* Your accountability framing (U-A): phone choice is on the user.
* TP evidence (TP1–TP4): multiple people found it worth engaging with (doesn’t prove “phone is fine,” but undercuts “this is obviously unusable/invalid”).

Updated status:
* Universal/standard version: ⚠️ In question (standing objections exist; no rebuttal provided)
* Personal preference version: ✅ Unquestioned (nobody disputes Greg is allowed to dislike reading long posts on a phone)

===== Original (SReflection): “If you didn’t put in the time… people are going to feel it isn’t worth their time.” =====
Even though it’s framed as conditional, it carries an implied premise: “this looks low-effort / unedited.”

Your new public comments are direct counterevidence to the generalized outcome (“people won’t think it’s worth it”):
* TP1 explicitly says care/thought is visible.
* TP2/TP4 express gratitude and praise (worthwhile).
* TP3 engages substantively with specific sections and praises the method (signals value and effort).

Updated status:
* The strong/general version (“people are going to feel it isn’t worth their time” as a broad prediction): ⚠️ In question (now contradicted by multiple public comments showing the opposite)
* The weaker version (“some people will feel that way”): ✅ Unquestioned (that’s trivially true; Greg and SReflection are examples)

===== Your TP comments don’t directly refute “AI-generated,” but they do refute the dismissive inference that it therefore wasn’t worth time / lacked care. OP also directly rebutted the “inaccurate” premise by asserting many hours of editing and authorship. =====

Updated status:
* “It’s obviously AI-generated and unpruned” (as a confident factual claim): ⚠️ In question (OP’s standing rebuttal remains, and now TP1 supports “care/thought is visible,” which is inconsistent with “unpruned” as a certainty-claim)
* “It reads like AI to me” (subjective impression): ✅ Unquestioned (a person’s feeling is not falsifiable; only the leap to “therefore it’s low-effort/invalid” is pressure-tested)

===== Your B point (“tone is an overgeneralization”) reinforces OP’s already-standing rebuttal: that he’s critiquing criticism and enforcing standards, not “taking it personally.” =====

Updated status:
* SReflection’s claim that OP has a “tremendous issue” taking criticism: ⚠️ In question (standing objections now include OP’s explanation and your explicit “tone is an overgeneralization” claim, with no reply shown)