I usually get heated up in a philosophical conversation on an issue I find important and will not hold back objections to whatever someone says, including what I might have said a couple minutes ago in the conversation. If we are not going to criticize the content of a person's comments and be wishy-washy about them, then we can't do much in the way of philosophy. Sometimes people don't like to be contradicted, but that should be challenged when one is engaged in philosophy. Hence, I am completely on board with you finding the observation in the quoted paragraph unacceptable.
As a moderator, I have criticized some people's posts on this board for two reasons. First, the antagonistic and all-knowing, condescending tone present in many of these. One can keep piling objections upon objections to someone's ideas, but that does not justify an antagonistic tone. Indeed, the presence of that tone makes it appear the conversation is being held in a kindergarten, where how loud someone says something may be more important than what one says. This hinders fruitful debate. We want to hear clearly articulated ideas, not sensationalist slogans, and we want to see what justification can be given for and against these ideas. It is hard to do that when some of the parties to the conversation act like spoiled children.
I have also noted the intellectually poor (and repetitive) content of some of the posts. In certain cases, I tried to say what I have understood from that post and given some ideas about how one might go about giving reasons for it. Sometimes I got no reply, in other cases I got something irrelevant to the issue I pointed out. All this gives the impression that some people are not really interested in having an actual debate where we (perhaps ruthlessly) ask for clarifications and replies to objections.
