Have you read the original post?

Yes. Here is what Timtyler said:

Of course, this isn't the first time I have pointed this out - see:

http://lesswrong.com/lw/33/comments_for_rationality/

Nobody seemed to have any coherent criticism the last time around - and yet now we have the same issue all over again.

The thread he was referring to is here. I agree with his characterization that nobody had conclusively refuted the Wikipedia notion of rationality; Eliezer hadn't even responded to it in that thread.

Tim was raising a valid criticism, and then added another post saying that he had pointed it out before and that it was unaddressed. Eliezer responded substantively to the first post, and gave the response under discussion to the second post.

I agree that Eliezer had reasons to be hostile, yet I do deny that they justified such a level of hostility, which is why I hypothesized that his response was due to a short fuse with the particular individual since I know that there is a weird dynamic between them. It would have been enough to say something like "I saw your post, so you don't need to keep bringing up the Wikipedia definition of rationality. See my response above." As the person advancing a definition of rationality, I think that the onus is on Eliezer to defend it from all comers. And as the owner of the website which is trying to build a community, it may be advantageous to reign in hostility even when justified, and try to always take the high road if only for reasons of impression management.

Accusing somebody of 'seeming' mean spirited is BS. Either he was mean spirited, or he wasn't.

Or, in my subjective opinion, his comment was mean-spirited, while granting that others, such as you, might disagree and think that the comment was deserved. My reference to my level of Agreeableness is so that others can have context to interpret my impression. (e.g. "Well, Hugh is just bothered by Eliezer's comment because he is high in Agreeabless")

Any level of 'agreeable quotient' is inadequate reason to make ad hominem attacks, while simultaneously refusing to provide evidence.

This is an incorrect usage of ad hominem, since Eliezer was not making a factual claim, and my impression of his comment as mean-spirited is not implying that he is wrong. I think you are engaging in the common confusion of ad hominem and personal attack. It is neither an ad hominem nor a personal attack to characterize someone's comment as mean-spirited; note also that I was calling the comment mean-spirited, not the person.

If the 'seemingness' of his hostility was sufficient reason to scare female-types away - then point that out! Say: "I did the home work, and his hostility was/wasn't justified for reasons A,B,C,D, but regardless, it intimidates female-types, and the solution is X."

Yes, I do think it's possible that such a level of hostility will intimidate female-types (though it is also possible that women who would participate here in first place wouldn't mind). There is no reason for me to attempt to make an objective judgment about whether or not the hostility was justified in order to make this point. As for a solution, I suggested an example response earlier in this post. But I'm not going to claim that I have all the answers. I just think that it's possible to deal with people who are potentially annoying or trollish without losing the high ground, and without injecting a tone of hostility into the website that might drive people away, especially if it becomes a common practice for many commenters.

The half-assed, poorly thought out, emotional post you just made undermines the entire purpose of this site, and is degrading to women; it implies that the curvier members of our species are incapable of admitting failure, and must be cottled and comforted any time they make a whoopsie. Grow a pair.

I think you missed the entire point of my post. As Eliezer and others have suggested, average personality differences between men and women may be a factor in why women are less likely to participate on this website. One of these potential personality differences is in Agreeableness. The point of my post was to show how that comment by Eliezer could be perceived, offering myself as a data point of someone with a female-typical level of Agreeableness; I wasn't particularly interested in trying to make an objective judgment about whether Eliezer's comment was justified or not, nor did I think that such a judgment was necessary.

I hardly think -4 (now -3, apparently) is indicative of wholesale disapproval. Of course, if most people keep the default viewing threshold and don't click through often then it' would be impossible to tell. But since this very thread has a comment at -8, and I've seen several below -10, I don't think that's the case.