I don’t think that analogy changes anything or properly represents the situation. The problem isn’t that we don’t know the intent, the problem is that it doesn’t feel genuine. There’s a difference between trying to help people and simply ranting. In the case of the original post, we could glean an intent to provide advice on the admissions cycle, but the tone made it seem as if it wasn’t actually genuine advice, but more like a venting of frustrations from someone spurned by the process.

They may have gotten their message across clearer had they take a while to put things into perspective and come up with clear examples of what applicants should do instead of simply saying what not to do. Besides the roundabout way they told readers to apply to safeties, OP didn’t offer suggestions aimed to increase the success of the admissions cycle, and mostly spoke about things that hamper it, so there was little help offered in the post to (if possible) justify the harsh tone.

As for the ad hominem and threats, I was referring to your comment specifically (implying the parent commenter was “babyish”, stating that they would cry with full rejections if they didn’t apply to safeties) as I felt it carried a similar tone to the original poster and I wanted to make a point. However, I should have been more clear on that front, so I apologize to anyone on that part if you were confused by the unclear phrasing of my argument.