I think the reason that some people (particularly, hyper-intelligent people) respond well to Linus's direct language is that they're so frustrated by what they

I think the reason that some people (particularly, hyper-intelligent people) respond well to Linus's direct language is that they're so frustrated by what they feel is the typical approach of obscuring information and pandering. People aren't really excited that Linus is slinging around insults; they're more excited that someone is willing to give the Straight Dope, the unadulterated truth, a realistic representation, even if that reality make some people unhappy. People get excited about this because it feels rare to them. Ordinarily, when someone is denying an offer or rejecting an idea, they're going to put on the kid gloves and try to make sure you feel good even though they're doing something that, for all intents and purposes, shouldn't make you feel good. Although there is no negative intent when someone is attempting a "sensitive" approach, it can be interpreted as a form of dishonesty and condescension: "why is this person pretending to be doing something good for me when they're so obviously not? do they think I'm so dumb I won't notice?". Frequent contact with that communication style sometimes triggers a deep-seated resentment for it. By the same token, some people are deeply appreciative of the general concern for the recipient's emotional health and self-worth reflected in such statements and are taken aback when they come in contact with someone who doesn't choose to communicate in that way. It's hard to find a middle ground that works for everyone, regardless of their background or perspective. I guess that's why we have professionals dedicated to finding the ideal phraseology for corporate communications. Maybe it could be argued that we shouldn't we try to do that.