Yes, I entirely agree. That’s my point!
I think you haven’t taken sufficient account of the full context. For example, what’s up with your concentrating on length in this context?
I couldn’t get you to go back and re-read it, could I?
He had bashed me in three posts and treated me very smarmily and condescendingly. In my anger, I failed in my responsibilities by attacking him personally, which definitely crossed the line. But in the follow-up post in question, I changed my ways. I offered a sincere apology for my personal insults. I told him I was going to criticize his views rather than him as a person. I went out of my way to tell him that while I found his views to be infantile, I did not find him to be infantile.
I put it to you that that your assertion that I crossed the line is unjust. The rule about crossing the line by attacking the person in the guise of attacking the view is not violated when the poster goes out of his way to apologize for the previous approach and explicitly state that the poster does not merit the criticism I feel his views deserve.
I am not concerned about this particular incident. I am concerned that you appear to be redefining the rules for the future.