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

===== These are the ones now under standing pressure: =====
# “Smartphone reading is a NO” (as a universal/standard indictment).
# “People are going to feel it isn’t worth their time” (as a general prediction).
# “It’s obviously AI-generated and unpruned” (as a confident factual conclusion rather than a personal impression).
# “OP has a tremendous issue taking criticism positively” (as a broad character inference from tone).

If we treat these as “negated by standing counters” at debate-close, then what becomes effectively unquestioned is:
* The “not worth your time / low-effort” inference doesn’t hold generally, because multiple public comments contradict it and OP asserts strong effort.
* The phone complaint can’t serve as an objective indictment of the post’s legitimacy, because it’s user-context-dependent (bookmarking / device choice / desktop availability).
* Tone alone isn’t sufficient to conclude “can’t take criticism,” because OP supplies an alternative explanation (assertiveness for standards + critique-of-critique), and you explicitly flag tone as overgeneralized.