No. 100 times no! He didn’t got told: “don’t post”.
When he said that he knew that there is a better way
he got told: “If you know there is a better way, then it’s better to not post the other way.”
So not the imperative/prohibitive mode to not post at all.
But only information that it is better to not write worse solutions if you know there are better one.
May be it is a problem with my English, but for me it doesn’t mean:
“don’t post if you don’t know the best answer”.
For me it has really nothing to do with posting when don’t knowing the best answer.
When don’t knowing the best answer you of course can post suggesting the best solution you know.
For me the heart of the statement lies in the condition at the beginning of the sentence (“If you know there is a better way”). In such case (and only in such case) it is better (only better! - not forbidden) to not describe the worse solution.
Do the native English speakers understand differently logic of this construction?
And I agree with that sentence.
Describing the worse way if you know that there is better way (have in mind this condition!) you can lead the questioner down the wrong path.
The problem comes down to the answer to the question: Is it better to be directed down the wrong path or not to be given such direction?
Answer may not always be unequivocal (I took this word from dictionary) but anyone who thinks it is better to not be directed the wrong path should conclude that the sentence what was the beginning of this story is simply true.
I am here with @paulvdh as I also don’t understand why sentence that for me is 100% true can provoke such a strong reaction.
I am trying to assume that this sentence can be understood differently but can’t find such a way of understanding it.