A comment below the
currently deleted just now undeleted question How did the US military "put the 'go slow'" on the use of force in the Vietnam War since the Tet Offensive? begins
History doesn't work like skeptics,...
and continued with advice on how to edit the question to make it more suitable for the site.
I gathered that this refers to History SE and Skeptics SE, but I
don't didn't participate in the latter (no longer true, joined 2 months afterward) and my profile shows this. To me, it feels like this is meant as as offhand, somewhat derogatory comment about the nature of my question meant to signal to others that "this is one of those crackpots".
I am probably overreacting, but I would never explain something to a user comparing a site to another unless I'd first checked to see if they participated in both sites referenced sufficiently to be able to parse my comment without risk of ambiguity or misunderstanding.
And I assume any seasoned user would show the same caution.
This is what makes me think that the comments was more of a nudge-nudge, wink-wink to other users than something meant to be helpful to me.
- Am I wrong? Does "History doesn't work like skeptics" carry a meaning that should be obvious to me even though I'm unfamiliar with that SE site?
- Regardless of the answer to the above, what is a good, helpful and actionable way to understand what "History doesn't work like skeptics" likely tries to convey?