Unread Dismissal

Dismissing a comment or disagreement by claiming the person didn't read the source, instead of answering what they said.

"You clearly didn't read the article."

"Did you read it, or just the headline?"

"If you'd actually read the post, you wouldn't be asking this."

"This was answered in the article you didn't read."

Why It's Unproductive

Whether someone read the article isn't a thing a thread can settle, so the accusation swaps the topic for a dispute with no resolution. It's tempting because it's sometimes true, but the only reply available is "yes I did," and the substance never comes back.

The Better Move

Name the part that covers it, or paste the line. That gives the other person something to reply to, which the accusation never does.

Why It's Better

It works on both kinds of people: someone who skipped the article gets the missing piece, and someone who read it and disagreed gets something to argue with. The accusation helps with neither.

---

Examples

OP: "Seems like this would break for anyone still on the old config format."
Antipattern: "You clearly didn't read the migration section."
Better: "Migration section covers it. There's a one-release compat shim, then it's a hard error."

OP: "Did they control for people who were already exercising regularly?"
Antipattern: "Pretty sure you skipped the methods section."
Better: "They did: 'effects were attenuated among participants active at baseline.' Table 3 has the split, it's about half the size."

OP: "I don't get what happens to the deposit if you cancel early."
Antipattern: "You didn't even look at the FAQ, did you?"
Better: "FAQ says 'cancellations more than 7 days prior are refunded less a 10% fee.' Inside a week, nothing back."