I don't know that we disagree. I will cheerfully agree that Martin's email was relatively measured, the discussion it kicked off was productive, and that his tone was neither bitter nor toxic. That doesn't detract from my point - that as far as I can make out, his perception of relative attack frequency is heavily selection-biased, and he's unaware of this danger. It is true that in this case the bias did not lead to toxic consequences, but I never said it did. The bias itself here is remarkable.

If my being a bit harsh on him basically consists of my not saying the above in the original comment, I'll accept that; I could've noted in passing that the discussion that resulted was at the end largely a friendly and productive one.