The Principle of Charity says that you should ascribe to any interlocutor the best possible interpretation of their words that you can manage.
'Best'? We interpret how we do, not how we like. We are all unique Perspectives, we all see things differently. None see the 'complete picture', all see a valid feature of the complete picture. If we give the author feedback and he says that he didn't mean that and 'this' is his intended meaning, that is not necessarily the last word, as the author's view, though 'valid' is incomplete, allowing room for other interpretations. Perhaps the meaning that you find is of more valus to you then his intended meaning?
How we perceive is
'best' as there really is no option to this perfect moment/percept. Perhaps we will see it differently in another moment/context.
Even if you think them to be insufferable toads with nothing more to say than a load of nonsense, assume that they are well-meaning rational operators whose differing conclusions come from alternative interpretations and experience, and that their arguments, insofar as is possible, are valid.
Personalities are completely irrelevent in a philosophical discussion. Otherwise a valid refutation might be to call someone a doo-doo head (the 'Doo-doo Head' response)! We find meaning where we do. Understanding that everything is true (in context), to 'widen Perspective' it might (as per your 'Principle') behoove us to attempt to understand the context wherein the other Perspective can be correct/true. Perhaps this is what you are refering to?
I am a lifelong adherent to this Principle, which helps me in being certain that someone really is an insufferable toad when their words are still spurious hateful nonsense and wholly invalid in the best possible interpretation.
Personalities aside, their words are true, it is for you to find how, the appropriate context.
One faces the head describes the 'front' of the elephant, another, viewing the 'rear', offers a very different view. In western philosophy, they argue until there is a winner and a loser. They both lose
in that scenario as neither has any fuller view of the elephant, just a stroked ego. The fellow describing that which is before him cannot see the other end, it does not exist for him (hence the arguing), it's existence is provided by the one perceiving it.
"The complete Universe can be defined/described as the sum-total of all Perspectives", not just those egoically considered 'right' (translate 'mine').
It is by this means that I always know I am in the right ;)
Your perceptions are always correct/true/'in the right', as are everyone else's! *__-