I'm more or less a fairly objective observer as I don't know the user nor the mod, and I figured this perspective might be helpful. There may be some past history feeding into the responses to this that I am unaware of, but here are my observations based solely on this post.
Based on the original version of the question, I think the initial comment was reasonable. There was no question. The comment asks what the OP was looking for. Once the OP clarified and asked an actual question (in a comment), Double AA replied,
If you were wondering that you can ask that, but that isn't what you
did in this post.
This is a helpful comment, it clearly indicates that the OP's actual question is not being clearly conveyed in his post. It is stated matter-of-factly, not rudely (some folks may not like bluntness, but that doesn't make it inherently rude nor indicate a bad attitude). At this point the correct response from the OP would be to edit the post in order to clarify the question.
However, the OP's response misinterpreted a matter-of-fact statement as the user/mod being 'offended,' which it was then clarified was not the case.
To me this seems to be a lot of hullabaloo about a misunderstanding. Quite simply, there was no question, it was unclear what was being asked (if anything). A comment made this clear, asking for clarification. Once it was received, it was explained that the actual question was fine, but that is not what was conveyed by the post. The OP misinterpreted the comment as the user/mod being 'offended' when s/he was not, and the user/mod clarified this.
This is not an example of rude communication nor pedantry. It's a simple case of a question that didn't actually ask a question being (rightly) closed as unclear (which is an SE-wide standard), seeking clarification in comments, and then being misunderstood by the OP.