Sure it is. The code is syntactically and semantically valid but
there's something you don't like about it. That something appears to
be its formatting. Formatting is an aspect of style. Hence, stylistic
criticism.

I don't disagree. However, the OP asked one question and you responded
with, at first, irrelevancies. Making comments or criticisms, however
valid, that are orthogonal to the asked question, before getting
around to answering that question (or, worse, in lieu of answering it)
is not especially nice and repeating such comments especially gives a
flavor of nitpicking to your posting. Combine that with the brusque
manner in which it was done and you cross the line into having
actually been (mildly) rude. This is what set Ed off, too, remember?
(Not that his over-the-top response to your behavior was any better,
mind; indeed, it was clearly much worse.)

I'm unsure why only I (and, I think, Roedy) seem to even notice the
frequent (albeit mild) rudeness of yours (and Andrew's) responses to
newbies; in particular it's been pointed out to (both of) you
repeatedly and you seem incapable of recognizing it. I suppose this
latest attempt to alert you to it is therefore futile, but doing
nothing would be even more so. But your attitude (and Andrew's) will
put new people off ever returning to this newsgroup and should change.
What a newbie sees when they find one of your responses is some picky
grammarian being more concerned with elements of style in their code
(or their English prose, even) than with the actual problem they asked
for help with (assuming, as is usually the case, that that problem was
something else). You don't see it that way. But they do.

Please save the nitpicking of their code (other than whatever is the
actual source of their complaint) for after the addressing of their
question, and make it more polite in tone (and ixnay on the pointless
repetition!) ...

If you went to a doctor with a bum knee, would you prefer he quickly
prescribe the painkillers or whatever it is you need, or spend the
first 3/4 of the time lecturing you for fifteen minutes about how you
really shouldn't smoke, repeating it three times word for word, first?
Even if after writing the prescription he reminded you to watch other
aspects of your health that he saw were cause for concern, I think
you'd prefer that to his basically changing the subject to your
smoking (or whatever) right off the bat and changing it back only much
later. Your priority is the knee. You want it fixed, or at least
something for the pain. The generic, unrelated health advice can wait.

Same with peoples' Java issues when they post here.

My interest is not to reformat the code but to assist the OP.

This is a discussion forum for Java matters.  Presumably we're all engineers
here and interested in facts.  I neither intended nor implied criticism,
simply to convey relevant engineering factors to the OP for their benefit.

I state facts as facts.  "It's raining outside."  "Statements should not
appear in source on the same line as the opening brace."

This rests on the understanding that the context for source-code convention
discussions is the widely-accepted set of source-code conventions, and that
the professionals in this groups are interested in adhering to professional
standards for everyone's benefit.  Perhaps I rely too much on people having
that attitude.

Furthermore, this is a free-ranging discussion group.  Sometimes discussion of
one matter, creating an instance, brings up other matters, the use of literate
programming conventions, for example.  Should we feel so shut down and
mistrustful of each other that we cannot broach such topics, for fear of
unleashing a vitriol of accusations of, yes, stylistic impropriety?

Ironic that the criticism leveled is far more exemplary of the problem about
which it purports to complain than the original remark was.