I'll add myself as another data point to sensing a hidden criticism/accusation of brain damage in your original post. Particularly, I think the main problem is this:
> I don't think it's a coïncidence.
This invites the reader to ask "Well, then what's the reason?" And you as the author haven't stated what you think is the answer, which makes the careless reader (in my defense, it's a single post!) bring up a cached thought for the answer. In my case, I see passive arguments all the time that use the same style you tried to use neutrally, where the arguers try to lead the reader to conclude the other side is brain damaged without specifically saying so.
Anyway, interesting case on miscommunication and careless reading. :)
> I don't think it's a coïncidence.
This invites the reader to ask "Well, then what's the reason?" And you as the author haven't stated what you think is the answer, which makes the careless reader (in my defense, it's a single post!) bring up a cached thought for the answer. In my case, I see passive arguments all the time that use the same style you tried to use neutrally, where the arguers try to lead the reader to conclude the other side is brain damaged without specifically saying so.
Anyway, interesting case on miscommunication and careless reading. :)