[mmt]

Isn't that being a tad overly-sensitive over what is, essentially, a technicality?

I agree that the tone borders on uncivil maybe crosses over with some vulgar language, but the only part that could be construed as ad-hominem is the phrase "You are the same kind of person" and, even then, the rest of the sentence goes on to accuse the commentor of making an argument by providing an analogy.

No name-calling occurred.

Threatening to ban someone for posting a comment that does, overall, make an important point, even when phrased awkwardly or not in the most civil way possible, is likely to have a chilling effect and "destroy intellectual curiosity", to borrow from the guidelines.

[dang]

It's a trope of getting personal on the internet to say "you are the kind of person who". Both aspects are bad, not just the personalness but also the tropiness, because by definition it repeats very easily. It's important to nip that in the bud. And it's not like it's necessary to make any substantive point.

[mmt]

But what is getting personal? Other than the use of the word "person", there is no actual reference to anyone's person.

The personal aspect would be bad, except it doesn't exist.

The tropiness of the phrase I'll take your word for, as I don't frequent any other online discussion sites. It certainly doesn't add to the discussion.

Is a phrase that is extraneous, currently popular/cliche, and merely possibly offensive because it's typically used ad-hominem elsewhere, really cause for threatening to ban a user?

I think you're over-reacting.