[catapart]

Personally, I find the tone of the article appropriate for the response received. The first email clearly set the tone as cordial and friendly while still being urgent. The response was in a clearly adversarial tone. So the prompter adjusted their tone accordingly.

It wasn't necessary to match tones with the person whom wanted to be uncharitable, but it definitely feels more human to me, which is who the writing is for: humans. I would have been fine with an info dump, but I enjoy turnabout as much as any other fan of fair play.

[cadamsdotcom]

If you want all the clicks and comments and drama you can get, staying professional is just boring.

Professionalism minimizes the risk of derailing or devaluing your argument by you being rude, inappropriate, etc. and avoids aggravating your counterparty. If - as in this case - the goal is NOT Internet drama but rather an improvement in security - the best way to do that would be to remain professional.

It is a question for the author of the piece which angle they prefer - consider that keeping it cool calm and collected is the slow way to build an audience.. even if the audience it builds is more engaged.

[iandanforth]

While there's a large audience for Jerry Springer style content, verbal abuse and stooping to the level of someone you're criticizing are not required. I don't read HN for name calling or childish taunting. It is always dispiriting to read, and even more so to read people defending. Humans, as you note, have base instincts, but giving into them and catering to them should be left to X and other sites devoted to pandering.

[baobun]

Where precisely is the "verbal abuse" and "name calling"?

Chill. I think you are the one overescalating, here.