The problem lies partially in the fact that you haven't defined what "user hostile" means. (In fact, neither of you have. And you could try to [disingenuously] argue that the burden to define it lies with the person you're responding to and that you don't have any such burden, but that would be a junk argument—provably wrong, since the claim that it's not user hostile is as strong of a claim as claiming that it is.) So, a simple litmus test to see if you're acting in good faith: simply state which definition of "user hostile" you're using. Place the goalposts.
What is a definition of the phrase that, if it were observed/shown/proven, you would concede that the subject of the discussion is guilty of acting in a user hostile way?
> * I claim it's not.
The problem lies partially in the fact that you haven't defined what "user hostile" means. (In fact, neither of you have. And you could try to [disingenuously] argue that the burden to define it lies with the person you're responding to and that you don't have any such burden, but that would be a junk argument—provably wrong, since the claim that it's not user hostile is as strong of a claim as claiming that it is.) So, a simple litmus test to see if you're acting in good faith: simply state which definition of "user hostile" you're using. Place the goalposts.
What is a definition of the phrase that, if it were observed/shown/proven, you would concede that the subject of the discussion is guilty of acting in a user hostile way?