I don't have a problem with your tone. What I suspect, though, is that based on the message you're trying to convey, you might be the target of the author.
"So from my viewpoint I am trying to increase S/N ratio by cutting down on courteousness. I can afford to do that since most of HN audience is well educated enough to know that opinions are ones own and thus know not to take things personally."
One of the points that the article is attempting to communicate is that different people need different approaches. You yourself said that most of the HN audience know not to take things personally, which implies you understand that this is not the case for other people. Cutting down on courteousness may be acceptable in HN, but it won't work for most other people.
"As long as you do and talk only what you are sure and confident of and politely abstain from what you are not. Then you have disarmed and conquered."
And this is what the article attempted to explain - just because you know what you are talking about and other don't, it doesn't mean others will willingly buy into what you're saying. It doesn't mean you have "disarmed and conquered".
One of the points that the article is attempting to communicate is that different people need different approaches. You yourself said that most of the HN audience know not to take things personally, which implies you understand that this is not the case for other people. Cutting down on courteousness may be acceptable in HN, but it won't work for most other people.
Indeed, I completely agree with you.
And this is what the article attempted to explain - just because you know what you are talking about and other don't, it doesn't mean others will willingly buy into what you're saying. It doesn't mean you have "disarmed and conquered".
In rhetoric there are three fundamental persuasion vectors. Logos - reason and logic; Pathos - emotion and subconsciousness and Ethos - appearance, charisma and social background. Pathos and Ethos are the most powerful ones - and thus every advertisement and every (successful) piece of propaganda is short on logic and reason and extremely long on emotion and appeal to authority. That is why geeks are lousy marketers and communicators. Because they are trying to convince people that their offering is rational and logical decision - but people don't care much about what makes sense.
So to respond to you - what you're saying is less important than the conviction with which it is conveyed. When have you heard or seen Steve Jobs act vulnerable and self-deprecating? That would be the single biggest mistake he could do. People are social animals and we are good at spotting insecurities - thus one does not point out his weaknesses out of his own accord. Should others notice them - you confirm them (Yes its there...) but you never expand on that.
My suggestion of talking and doing only what you are confident about is actually a trick about how to make oneself appear a figure of wisdom and authority far beyond one's true abilities. A person with great Ethos know very well when to speak and when to shut ones trap.
"So from my viewpoint I am trying to increase S/N ratio by cutting down on courteousness. I can afford to do that since most of HN audience is well educated enough to know that opinions are ones own and thus know not to take things personally."
One of the points that the article is attempting to communicate is that different people need different approaches. You yourself said that most of the HN audience know not to take things personally, which implies you understand that this is not the case for other people. Cutting down on courteousness may be acceptable in HN, but it won't work for most other people.
"As long as you do and talk only what you are sure and confident of and politely abstain from what you are not. Then you have disarmed and conquered."
And this is what the article attempted to explain - just because you know what you are talking about and other don't, it doesn't mean others will willingly buy into what you're saying. It doesn't mean you have "disarmed and conquered".