> Abusive is when that conversation turns into name calling.
I don't think so; it depends on context. If someone calls you names in context of you doing something stupid, then it's not abuse, it's just being abrasive. Abuse would be had he done it without you giving a reason. And I think we should save the word abuse for the latter (and also perhaps for something where is a profit motive).
I mean, every post from Linus where he uses harsh words has some context like that. He just doesn't randomly throws insults to his colleagues. You can read the insults as an abuse or you can read them as a big yellow warning signs - your choice.
> When those complaints let fly to other ears, they should be phrased a little better.
Here the "should" is a cultural choice. It's a universal, safe option. It's like being polite to people you don't know, or being diplomatic in diplomacy.
But in the cultural context of kernel development, you're already part of the in-group. And in that particular in-group, being called names is normal and accepted by the insiders. That it happens on the Internet, for the outsiders to see, doesn't change the fact that the cultural choice was made freely by insiders.
And people who prefer the former to the latter (as per my previous post) probably don't care to much about being called names when they do stupid thing (being abused, as you call it, but they actually don't want to be really abused or tolerate it either) - because with that mentality, it's results or your own improvement that matters, not so much who is polite. I think Linus would be OK if other people called him names when he does something stupid, however it doesn't happen mostly because people respect him and he doesn't do stupid things very often.