Say for a moment that the events happen as described: > "Felleisen even­tu­ally swiveled his rage in my direc­tion, verbally impugning my skills and qual­i­fi­

Say for a moment that the events happen as described: > "Felleisen even­tu­ally swiveled his rage in my direc­tion, verbally impugning my skills and qual­i­fi­ca­tions, and suggesting that however bad things were, I would only make it worse. [...] Felleisen clearly took plea­sure in demeaning and belit­tling me in front of this group." If the author was a 'fragile flower', would that make this described behaviour then acceptable? Parent commentor is not asking "prove that there was an outburst of insults directed at you", they're asking "prove that you didn't fall apart because you are weak", and that seems pretty irrelevant - weak or strong people should be able to attend a conference by invite without being told by the organisers they are incompetent and will make everything worse, right? (The use of the author's words in that context doesn't change much; imagine author: "before you say I'm a moron, I have built XYZ" going to commentor: "prove you aren't a moron?" - it's an insult, because the author used it in an insulting context while disclaiming its applicability)