> The person you're responding to does not seem upset to me. I don't think we're reading this the same. To quote OP, >> I was distracted by the generally smu

> The person you're responding to does not seem upset to me. I don't think we're reading this the same. To quote OP, >> I was distracted by the generally smug tone of it. The definition of "smug": > smug /sməɡ/ adjective. having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements. > contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent. This is why I responded. If you don't like the tone of the article, you don't need to suggest that the author has a superiority complex. > And the personal jab just isn't necessary. "smug" is a personal jab. I didn't make one.