I love Ragan.com so much—I love to try and, even after a decade and a half of writing for and about communicators, inevitably fail to predict how readers will react to stuff I and my colleagues have written, and thanks to Ragan.com's comments feature, I can.

What I don't love is when I succeed at predicting how readers will react. I've noticed a certain type of prissy, self-righteous, tin-eared pipsqueak communicator.

He or she has been taught by positivist corporatist morons that it's never okay to criticize unless you do so "constructively."

So he or she reacts to every single opinion piece that's negative by saying through sniveling pursed little lips, "That's all well and good, but it would be better if you said how a press release should be written."

Not that they don't have a point sometimes. This week a number of readers criticized a Ragan.com piece about photo captions because they were genuinely confused about what was the matter with the captions the writer was ripping. And they seemed genuinely interested in learning how to write good captions. And they seemed genuinely let down by our failure to help them do that.

We reacted by writing a follow-up piece about how to write good captions.

But often—for instance, with Steve Crescenzo's hilarious C.R.A.P. Awards piece about a stupid press release—we're just pointing out stupid stuff and saying why it's stupid and having some Godamned fun.

Do these readers write to reviewers who pan a novel and say (again, through their sniveling little pursed lips), "Well, Mr. Smarty, how should he have written the novel then?"

Do they read political analysis and write the commentator, "Well, how would you govern Russia?"

Of course not. But because what we do is in the realm of the corporate world and all its bland, semi-smiling expectations of that moving target called "professionalism," they think they can wag their fingers at everybody who says a discouraging word.

Management jerks aren't the only ones who perpetuate the Stepford-wife corporate culture.