You apparently sometimes assume people are angry on minimal evidence and without explaining your reasoning. You did it with me, and I don’t think this is a personal grudge but something you might do with someone else in similar circumstances. In particular, I think you may have tried to judge my emotional state from the on topic content and perhaps also style of my writing. I understand that in some cases, with some people, such judgments are accurate. I don’t think this is such a case, and I don’t think you had any good evidence or good explanation to tell you otherwise.
I think that you had some kind of reason for thinking I was angry, but that you left it unstated, which shields it from critical analysis.
The way I read your statements, you assumed I was angry (based presumably on unstated reasoning) and drew some conclusions from that, rather than asserting I was angry and arguing for it. E.g. you suggested that I got angry and it was causing me to do it wrong. (BTW that looks to me like, by your standards, stronger evidence that you were angry at me than the evidence of my anger in the first place. It is pejorative. I suspect you actually meant well—mostly—but so did I.)
(Pejorative) research you disagree with is designed to prove people are (pejorative).
People can dislike things without being angry. Right? If you disagree with me about the substance of my criticisms, ad hominems against my emotions are not the proper response. Right?
To clarify the part you were curious about:
You apparently sometimes assume people are angry on minimal evidence and without explaining your reasoning. You did it with me, and I don’t think this is a personal grudge but something you might do with someone else in similar circumstances. In particular, I think you may have tried to judge my emotional state from the on topic content and perhaps also style of my writing. I understand that in some cases, with some people, such judgments are accurate. I don’t think this is such a case, and I don’t think you had any good evidence or good explanation to tell you otherwise.
I think that you had some kind of reason for thinking I was angry, but that you left it unstated, which shields it from critical analysis.
The way I read your statements, you assumed I was angry (based presumably on unstated reasoning) and drew some conclusions from that, rather than asserting I was angry and arguing for it. E.g. you suggested that I got angry and it was causing me to do it wrong. (BTW that looks to me like, by your standards, stronger evidence that you were angry at me than the evidence of my anger in the first place. It is pejorative. I suspect you actually meant well—mostly—but so did I.)
People can dislike things without being angry. Right? If you disagree with me about the substance of my criticisms, ad hominems against my emotions are not the proper response. Right?