Exactly. And I'm not impressed with the way the "professionalism" police are so quick to condemn Torvald for one justifiably angry email while giving such a conspicuous pass to a sustained pattern of passively aggressive, measurably destructive, and flatly un-collegial behavior that is the true definition of unprofessional.

In other words, there's a pretty egregious double standard being applied here. In my experience, that typically favors the kinds of abusive personalities who have discovered some easily-exploited aspect of the social system to simultaneously provide cover for their own bad behavior while limiting their target's ability to retaliate.

If I were on a team stuck with this guy, and required by professional norms to bite my tongue, I can safely say I'd take supreme satisfaction in seeing such a nasty employee get this severely excoriated. And make no mistake, this isn't about "feedback" or "criticism". It's about driving the guy out of the shop in a way that provides a suitable catharsis for everyone who has had to put up with his actual and sustained unprofessionalism.

Of course, tf this were an arbitrary, unjustified, or otherwise baseless response, I could see how it would be hugely damaging to Torvald's authority, and the trust he relies on. But in a case like this, the opposite seems true. And if it puts others who present similar problems on notice, so much the better.

It's quite possible to be angry about something, and also be polite in ones response.

This is also revealing: the idea that it is somehow dishonest if one chooses to not publicly verbalize one's own internal state.

We should think about that for a moment. This is the proposal: "I am being dishonest unless I verbalize my anger about a topic."

I would submit that dishonestly would require a more direct statement.

"I am not angry about your continued choices for ignorance."

That would be dishonest.

In my opinion, not saying anything about one's internal state can't be dishonest. No information was given.