Reading through some answers seam to be factually wrong. I am not sure if it is a standpoint in another school hence there is a dilemma on how to deal with them. People who as the question and would be readers may end up confused or misguided.
Unless there is an obvious factual mistake (e.g. someone says s\he quotes Majjhima Nikaya while obviously quoting Milinda Panha) I would not rush with comments. We don't want to discourage new users by long flamewars in the comments. Certainly, if you asked for clarification once and the author responded, but you are still not satisfied, I would strongly recommend to restrain your horses. Instead, post your own answer with whatever facts you consider valid. If you absolutely must argue, please kindly proceed to chat, and there discuss your point to your heart's content.
Also, remember the following:
-- 'As for Kashyapa... You see, Asvajit' -- sighed Gotama, 'some people believe that the purpose of philosophical debate is to outargue the opponent and prove one's superior understanding.'
-- 'But this is so, Master Gotama, the one who wins the dispute, he must be the wiser, right?'
-- 'One who is really wise, Asvajit, debates not to win.'
-- 'What point is to argue then?!'-- As far as common sense Kaundinya had no equal.
-- 'It is quite pointful still. The point is, for the two sides, through combining two different understandings of the same problem, to free themselves from mistaken fixations, each side from their own.'
I would put a comment in asking for clarification. Maybe it is a different school that has that interpretation. If no satisfactory answer came back then I would downvote. I personally would always leave a comment about why you have downvoted but that is just me.
Of course if it is abusive or inflammatory in any way then I would flag for moderator attention.