The person who posted the review is projecting this behavior on customer service. We don't know exactly what happened and we only have one side of the story.

> It became clear later on that this limitation was placed by a support agent which I apparently angered during the first issue...

Was it actually that clear? Did the customer service rep give an indication that he or she was "angry" with this person? No details were offered except for language which most likely wasn't being used.

> They didn't use these words, but it was the gest of it.

This was used liberally through the review. The reviewer posted the "gest" of the customer service replies which seemed to be filtered through the reviewer's perception of the mood of the person on the other end.

The reviewer is building a monument to their conflict with a previous employer.

Every future interview they have will be in the shadow of this monument.

What do they gain? The company they've focused their ire upon isn't going to fold because of these paragraphs. The person working there now has an opportunity to revel in their handiwork - they riled this guy up all the way to the top of Hacker News!

Best to relegate your emotional outbursts to your art instead of putting them into your business or relationships if you can't keep perspective of how they'll effect your future. I wish someone gave me this advice.

Thank you. Don't blow up in public. Go ahead and post a negative review, but keep it rational. That you ended up homeless is too much information.

Post details about the experience, not just your interpretation of the emotional state of customer service.