No, those are not the facts. That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That vocabulary means something to you but may mean something els

No, those are not the facts. That is your interpretation, and it is worded in your vocabulary. That vocabulary means something to you but may mean something else to someone else. The wiser way to behave here is to realise that your interpretation may or may not be true, since you are working from a highly incomplete data set and therefore tone down the use of vocabulary that may have multiple meanings and instead focus on vocabulary that is less likely to be interpreted as an insult. For example, you might have said: > I notice from one of your statements that you seem to be working for a fund yourself. Do you think that this impacts your view of this problem? Instead of: > Ah, so you have a dog in this fight. You're not an impartial participant, striving for objectivity. That means I'm wasting my time talking to you -- you're not a scientist, you're a salesman. All the bits in italics (yes, that's most of your comment) are potentially insulting to the person you're replying to. The first one is a mild character attack, the second one is a direct insult, and the third one is easily perceived as a direct character attack, especially in the context of the other two. Overall, this sentence is the comment equivalent of sneering at someone at a well-to-do party, and loudly dismissing them as a damn fool. If you're the host of the party or someone notable, you may get away with this sort of behaviour, but as a guest, you will be the one led to the door. The restatement above makes the exact same point, casts the exact same aspersions on the views of the person you're replying to, but does so in a way that is not perceived as an insult.