The Oxford/community college point is a valid one, because it points out the emptiness of the clickbaity "learned at Oxford" in the OP title. The "cliché inter

The Oxford/community college point is a valid one, because it points out the emptiness of the clickbaity "learned at Oxford" in the OP title. The "cliché internet objection to longer articles" can be valid in some cases. This is one of them. Plenty of other comments in this thread have pointed out the inherently blogspammy nature of the OP. It's a long, rambling piece with a clickbait title that wraps a tiny nugget of advice that may in any case be of limited applicability. I'm a huge fan of long-form writing, like many of the articles one can find in e.g. The New Yorker, The Paris Review, etc. If this had been an article like that, then a snarky but biting dismissal might have been out of line. But the only thing the OP article has in common with those articles are its aspirations, which it failed to deliver on. Responding to the form of a critical comment without considering the context is blind application of rules that doesn't help maintain the level of dialog. If we really wanted to apply effective moderation here, it should be to the OP article.