I am all for being in control of what exactly you are saying and being alert to unintended slights but this example from TFA

"But we don't have the budget or skills to do that, how would we overcome that?" ... makes the presenter look very bad. ... be diplomatic and tactful ...

You could phrase it as, "This seems like an amazing idea and a great presentation. I wonder how we could secure the budgeting and get the team for it, because it seems like it'd be a profitable if we do, and it'd be a shame to miss this opportunity."

I don't think the first question necessarily insults the speaker, but that aside, does the second version even mean the same thing as the first?

The technique used seems to be an overblown [positive-(watered down)negative- positive] sandwiching. I am not sure it is the most effective way to communicate intent without giving offense.

If I heard something like that in a project meeting I would have to think about what exactly was being said and mentally strip away all the bracketing empty phrases to understand the real concern.

The first question can be modified to lose its sting (assuming a sting exists, I am not so sure, it wold depend very much on shared history, context and tone) by softening it up a bit without the unnecessary padding of the second version.

"What are your thoughts on the budget and skillsets needed to implement this idea?" or the more narrowly focused "How could we secure the budgeting and the team for this idea?" asked in a friendly tone avoids the middle manager speak of the second version (imo).

I've been in meetings (Hello Intuit!) where everyone was constantly trying to avoid giving even the slightest offense and every point was hedged in a lot of positive stroking and pre-declarations of non offensive intent, with sideways glances at the top dog in the room, to the point where no one could make out wtf was actually being said or who had what concerns.

Another example, the second response to his blog post didn't seem to be offensive to me, unless you are predisposed to see offense in any feedback that didn't use the sandwiching technique - positive stroke-mildly negative feedback with more hedging about ultimate altruistic purpose etc-then another positive statement about your intent/the speaker etc.

How much of this is a predisposition of the author vs sound advice that should be followed to get specific effects? Just something to think about.

By all means, be aware of how your speech/writing etc could give offense and avoid such instances where possible. Be careful in your phrasing, tone etc. Be socially aware.

That doesn't mean you have to be longwinded or speak in sandwiched Middle Manager-ese all the time. I think the central point of the article is valid and worth thinking about but the examples aren't very convincing. The article would be stronger with better crafted examples, considering the target audience.

PS: just saying: my only "strategic intent" (heh) with this comment is to provide a bit of a counterpoint here on HN, not to provide acritique feedback to the author etc, which means I don't have to follow the sandwich strategy or pad up my comment with superficial stroking to make him more amenable to my suggestions and so on and so forth.