Perfectly fair observations. I would add to this a key part of how we read: whether or not you or I or anyone else perceives a piece as being overly emotional has everything to do with our state of mind and all the filters through which we read them. That doesn't mean that the article itself is overwrought. More so, as with all deep work, the question that comes up is what on earth is coming up inside me that I have this reaction. Then on top of that, what on earth is inside me that I feel the compulsion to bark at, control, shame or otherwise badger the author? These are far bigger questions that take us down a very different pathway. One thing I've been observing is that people often hear a boundary being set as a condemnation of them personally. The way to understand that is that you don't tell your kid you hate them for dropping a cookie on the floor. You don't like having to clean up the cookie (the behavior) but you still love them. The difference is profound. Setting boundaries- please do this, don't do that- is healthy. Overreacting to that is not.

There is no question that how we interpret words and tone will vary according to nation, generation, a slew of things. We might agree on the words we use but we have difficulty agreeing on how they should be interpreted. I can most certainly allow for that, but I don't take well to condescension, and I also don't do well with being misunderstood when I have gone to great lengths to specifically write out what I mean. People can read but not see, read but not understand, read but completely disregard someone's very clear words. We get in our own way. My hand is way up here.