The person you're responding to does not seem upset to me.
You add an interesting perspective that some people want to find encouragement in these types of essays. And the personal jab just isn't necessary.
I don't think we're reading this the same.
To quote OP,
>> I was distracted by the generally smug tone of it.
The definition of "smug":
> smug /sməɡ/ adjective. having or showing an excessive pride in oneself or one's achievements.
> contentedly confident of one's ability, superiority, or correctness; complacent.
This is why I responded. If you don't like the tone of the article, you don't need to suggest that the author has a superiority complex.
> And the personal jab just isn't necessary.
"smug" is a personal jab. I didn't make one.
The person you're responding to does not seem upset to me.
You add an interesting perspective that some people want to find encouragement in these types of essays. And the personal jab just isn't necessary.