Impolite, uncourteous reveiwers

It happens to all of us: we get a paper back from a journal including a review that contains hurtful comments. The thing is, this isn't necessary. We can all find a way to write "wow this section sucks I don't think these authors understand this concept" without saying just that. And in fact, it is much more helpful to find a constructive, objective way of saying illustrating a point. But it takes more time of the reviewer to hammer out exactly what is "wrong" and to defend their position than it does to write something like "clearly the authors just do not understand this concept".
Yes.. I just got a paper rejected from a journal. One reviewer had very nice, constructive comments and did not reject it. The second reviewer (the "meany") totally slammed it, but within the negative, impolite comments there are some constructive criticisms and some positive comments. the third reviewer seems to be ambiguous. The journal editor invites us to submit again after addressing the comments and it will be sent out for review again. I bet my co-authors will want to re-submit. We'll take the high road: we'll politely address the reviewers comments, re-write the paper, not play into the negativity, and in all likelihood it will get published. There is some eg0-swallowing that must be done to take the high road. I really want to vehemently object to reviewer #2s comment that clearly I do not understand concept X but I won't. Here in this blog though, I'll have it out. Reviewer #2 uses much of the same wording as I do in the paper to explain concept X but then concludes that we don't get it. Further, the reviewer doesn't object to our calculations of concept X... which makes it seem unreasonable to conclude that we just don't get it. I do see how the reviewer could be confused on some aspects of my wording though, and I will change it to make it less confusing. The really funny thing is that this reviewer DEMANDED that we PROVE to him/her one point. I think this person made this demand in clear anticipation that we would not be able to do it but we can and we will. I would not have written it if I could not have backed it up. And when I "prove" this point to the reviewer, I will enjoy the satisfaction that this subtley suggests that this reviewer is not as smart as he/she thinks. This will make the reviewer look bad, and I will enjoy it.
One thing I learned from my PhD advisor is to try to frame things in a positive manner. This does not mean "bull shit" or be insincere. It means that instead of focusing on the negative, find a way frame problems, unknowns, or criticism in a positive way. When I do this, I see that it brings people on board rather than putting up defenses and closing people off. I have seen this pay off in the short and long term for my former advisor in many ways, and I am seeing it pay off for me too. It is not always easy to do, but in the end, it pays off. I'm sure of it. And I have been approaching my reviews this way too. As a junior reviewer, I think I get a lot of the crappy papers out there, and I find a way to point out the problems without being condescending, snotty, mean, immature, etc. I would never have written "clearly the authors do not understand..." I would instead have written something to express the need for clarification, etc etc and backed it up with my perceived differences in my understanding vs. the authors.
This is how science goes. Within 1 week, I got an offer for a very excellent faculty position and I got invited to give a plenary talk at a conference, so I was flying high and feeling pretty good about myself.. until I got this paper rejected and read the reviews. Oh well, the latter is temporary and can be fixed.