> One of the annoying parts of this article was that the author dismissed the comment as "non-factual" without providing any evidence or explanation.
He didn't dismiss the comment as non-factual without providing any evidence or explanation. If read carefully, he:
* stated the other commenters called it out as non-factual (it appears at least one commenter did do that[1])
* claimed half of the dispute could be attributed to not reading the post carefully
* provided an example of where the top comment was mistaken or misread (commenter focused on Bangkok when the original story explicitly stated Bangkok was a bad place to live)
* offered up an example of a comment that he believed to be factual (the second-to-the-top one[1])
> Apparently whenever someone writes something that the author disagrees with, it is automatically categorized as snark.
No, it isn't. But this sentence here—where an author's attentions are sarcastically and baselessly mischaracterized off of a misreading (or lack of reading?) of his or her post would definitely qualify as snark.