Because we all read the post their comment was responding to and understood quickly & easily that they were setting up the same reversal of expectations as the lineman in the OP. Context my friend, context.

Not sure how you know they weren't but ok.

How do I "know" that you have a mind and have conscious experiences and aren't just a zombie?

For arguments sake let's say I don't "know." But I can still assume so. I wrote and write under the assumption that such is the case then and now.

Does one need to know x--whatever "know" means--to state "that x"?

I don't believe so, certainly not as a blanket rule. Do you? Is that why the standard was applied to what I wrote?

A can of worms. What's the point? Plenty abound in backyards, internet forums (elsewhere), and politicians' brains apparently.

Ultimately, the bar--or standard of proof--for acknowledgement and praise, which could have been reasonably inferred from my comment, is low. E.g., when a student does well on a test (in-person, lol), we do not need to "know" that they are perspicacious or precocious. Nor do we need to "know" that they didn't cheat or simply "guessed" and got lucky. Regardless of (or even in spite of) experience or plausibility, I strongly hold that it is by default fine to assume they did a good job and are a good student. That's good faith.

How can anyone make friends or have a good life without having some good faith for "strangers," even if that "vulnerability" can be abused from time to time?

Good luck on the path ahead.