On the contrary, it was quite civil and thought provoking. It was simply terse, elegant, and to the point. "Naive" needn't have been interpreted as a personal

On the contrary, it was quite civil and thought provoking. It was simply terse, elegant, and to the point. "Naive" needn't have been interpreted as a personal attack, it was a sufficient and complete summary of the argument presented, implying it undeserving of response. Only lack of creative imagination would consider "Naive" not thought-provoking. It is not my responsibility to hand-hold and lead a conversation. If someone cannot immediately mentally extrapolate the implications of a statement, maybe they should ponder it and explore the possible meanings, giving me the benefit of the doubt as to poignancy. Instead, they vote it down, because it's not full of the superficial spoon-fed explicitness the down-voters expect.