The demand for inconvenient truths is always lower than the demand for reassuring lies. My tone is as polite as I could make it while making the points that I believe needed to be made.

Lol. I said "tome". As in a lengthy diatribe. The "tone" of your comment seemed fine.

I thought you'd made a typo. A "tome" is a heavy book, not a lengthy diatribe. The book could be a lengthy diatribe, but it could also be an annotated edition of The Odyssey. I suppose you could have called a long comment a "tome" out of playfulness, but it wasn't the clearest choice of words.

The tone in his usage of the word tome reminds me of tl;dr, or rather, tl; did read but will not argue your points.

Although the original post does come off as ad hominem.

"ad hominem" is totally going on the HN bingo card :)

Right next to "Dunning-Kruger", I hope.

Actually, it's always "Dunning-Kruger" with a link to the wikipedia article to make it more authoritative.

So the "Full Version" is apparently not what your email said. That wasn't clear until the above comment.

In the "Full Version", if I was a hiring authority, which I am not (although I have been in past lives), there isn't enough there to warrant a second look. Did you have a cover letter? How many pages were in your resume? What projects have you done?

In what you have shared here, we see only keywords and some snark. Keywords don't cut it with real hiring managers.

If that's your natural communication style, your "more professional" style is probably drone-ish and fake. The probe most active on that first contact with an applicant is the honesty one, and it's pretty easy to trip when you're not in your natural voice.