> But that seems to still assume this "abrasiveness" is a bad thing.

The commenter literally says "it's important to note that Douglas Crockford can definitely be abrasive [1]. The issue at hand is that whether this abrasiveness is a bad thing..."

Exactly, but the part after that pretty much presumes that it is, which is why I was puzzled.

EDIT: And I should have made that more clear, thanks for pointing it out.