You told me I should learn the language, then you go on to confidently say that there's no plausible way that the grandpa had a heatstroke. Call it what you want, that's a disagreement on the translation. And I don't know why you're so hung up about my question... I asked it so you could explain yourself rather than if I just pointed out you got something wrong.
...not 100% sure, possibly defending them on a point they weren't making... but by the flow of their original statement:
"
"I really want to know how you guys..." is not a polite English opening sentence, thanks for the comment, but try to be more polite, I don't work for you.
Next time, take the initiative, start learning Japanese, start learning how to translate comics from Japanese to English, and start translating an abandoned manga on your own, learn it just because you want to read it.
"
it was more like "instead of correcting us in such an unpleasantly toned way, do your own scanlation work if you feel displeased with ours", instead of "actually know what you're talking about before saying it", if that's your interpretation.
I won't deny the part of them mentioning how gramps couldn't have a heatstroke in such a strong way sounds bad, specially when it's mistaken (its summer, how would heatstroke not be plausible then), but at least it's kinda understandable that some annoyance would show more directly somewhere. As in the initial part was trying to be cordial to someone who said something that felt undeservedly rude in a positive manner, if a bit aggressively worded, but that bit was the annoyance showing up regardless in trying to defend their work.
Point being, both sides screwed up in trying to converse in a constructive manner to a degree (from the tone conveying the information, mostly). No need to feel additionally aggravated when one side wanted to know the thought process of the other in the TL (written in a demanding way), and the other answered in what they thought was appropriate for the way it was written (but failing to fully sound neutral in all of it, even making a mistake in the process).
Just in case, asking if someone can "explain themselves" instead of asking for "how they did the translation" also sounds very different in terms of tone in a conversation, with the first one in general sounding demanding and aggressive in most contexts. And even then, they ended up explaining it: they ended up with a typo when copying down part of the TL text, and believed they were right about it regardless. Which they say resulted in the current confusion presented, and conveyed such a thing in a later reply They aren't directly saying they were wrong, but they are admitting they made a mistake, which for how you're sounding feels like something normal to do.
Why even write this in the first place if the idea is to get both sides to stop? IDK, wanted to speak some about semantics, maybe get both sides to at least say "yeah I didn't express myself the best way during the conversation at some points, sorry about that" and end on a more positive note. And if it seems I'm taking their side more than yours, it's because while it is true they're talking non-passive aggressively, at least it sounds less confrontational that how you've come off, if possibly unintentionally, in particular from your latest two replies (that why I wrote the previous paragraph at all).
Sorry if this feels particularly inflammatory regardless.
And if it makes you feel better: yes, you were correct. No, they weren't trying to argue as much as trying to defend their work while (again) trying to be cordial. Arguing would require them to at least make more points than just that, instead of trying to defuse the situation (they even invite you to help on proofreading for help, regardless of feeling aggravated, if possibly to continue talking about it outside the forum). Just insisting on how the line was read and possibly explaining how it ends up like that, without sounding patronizing with the "Look,..." at the start and saying the thing about it being an argument would have gotten them to admit being wrong on the TL and explaining how they got the word wrong in a less passive-aggressive manner.
