YOU DECIDE (POLL): Did 'Stupid' Stadium Comment Cross Line?

Did this bill use language that violates the Patch Terms of Use?

"this deal makes economic and social sense, no one is really paying anything all monies are returned and we get to help charities and add to our general fund. Arguments against are stupid, uneducated, and have to do with personal agendas. I saw a poll from 2 years ago and 80% favored a new stadium, it is the will of the people." [emphasis added]

The Patch Terms of Use say, in part, that users must not: 

"... post or transmit to other users anything that contains Content that:

• is defamatory, abusive, obscene, profane or offensive ...
• is threatening, harassing or that promotes racism, bigotry, hatred or physical harm of any kind against any group or individual"

At the time, there were also several comments from another person—the only commenter on that post to argue against the bill. That person has since deleted the anti-bill comments because of what seemed to the commenter to be a personal attack in the 'stupid, uneducated' comment quoted here.

Part of my job at Fridley Patch is to moderate comments—that means keeping them within bounds and deleting comments that violate the Terms of Use. I decided the comment calling the other side of the stadium-bill argument "stupid" and "uneducated" did not cross the line—specifically, that it was not "defamatory" or "abusive" or "harassing" and didn't "promote hatred ... against any group or individual."

Did I make the right call or was I off base? Leave a comment below.