Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the guidelines only seem to state: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid grat

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the guidelines only seem to state: > Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. I guess this is the point where we'd be arguing about taste, but it seems to me that while textfile's comment was clearly negative, it was well constructed and well thought out. Not to mention it was in the _exact_ same tone as the article he'd written years ago that the conversation was about. In this case we should be very careful not to immediately jump on people being upset or negative. It's a powerful tool that, in this case, is being used wisely. I think a bruised sensibility here and there is a worthwhile risk in the name of maintaining a network like HN that accepts dissent and spirited disagreement. As a slight tangent, in reading the guidelines I found that more than an attempt to tone-police, they are an attempt to lower the noise:signal ratio. The reason I feel that this discussion is important is because it's the reply, not textfile's response, that adds noise to the discussion even if you feel targeted by the authors response.