Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a struggling writer, I value some amount of vitriolic/venom/sarcasm as color that can make an otherwise dry post read better; pure bland information alone is hard to digest without sugar or even grapefruit bitterness. I'm not able to do it very well, so I don't try, but I see value in those that can. The commenter's post was informative, colorful, and tasteful in my opinion, but I understand there are also people…
Yeah, I can understand that perspective, and I'm really conflicted about that kind of thing. I try to ascribe to a pragmatists view of it. I should say that I'm also not someone who has done a lot of formal study of communication and education, but I tend to think that abrasive language tends to stifle discourse to a point. I'm amenable to the idea that it's got its place and that it can be useful. I just wonder how…
I'm not sure if it is fair to say the commenter was "attacking someone" unless they were spewing out ad hominems, of which I didn't see any.