TigersEye: "I'm not going to read past that nonsense. Good grief, that was only an excerpt? Why would anyone write so much gobbledygook? More to the point why would anyone read it? I got that far and it's like trying to wade through a page on DU. I can't do it."
I don't know what sort of Buddhism you've studied, but will you accept what was stated about anger if it comes straight out of the Dali Lama's mouth?:
Q: What did the Buddha teach about anger, specifically righteous anger? Is any anger acceptable in Buddhism?
A: The Dalai Lama recently answered the question, "Is there a positive form of anger?" by saying that righteous anger is a "defilement" or "afflictive emotion"--a Buddhist term translated from the Sanskrit word klesha--that must be _eliminated_ if one seeks to achieve nirvana. HERE
I practice Tibetan Buddhism. A different school than the Dalai Lama. Tibetan Buddhism is not taught or practiced in a hierarchical way so what the Dalai Lama says is of little importance to me unless he were one of my formal teachers or I was taking a teaching from him. Even then my personal teacher is the one whose instructions and teachings are foremost for me. That is essentially the tradition that even the Dalai Lama follows.
Q: What did the Buddha teach about anger, specifically righteous anger? Is any anger acceptable in Buddhism?
The ideas of "acceptable" or "not acceptable" are antithetical to the "view" that is taught and practiced in Tibetan Buddhism. The premise of the question is only valid from an outsider's POV particularly a western POV. What the Buddha said has to be taken according to the view of the particular level of teachings one is a student of and it is not possible to understand them without the view which is why a teacher is essential to any level of practice.
A: The Dalai Lama recently answered the question, "Is there a positive form of anger?" by saying that righteous anger is a "defilement" or "afflictive emotion"--a Buddhist term translated from the Sanskrit word klesha--that must be _eliminated_ if one seeks to achieve nirvana.
"Eliminated" is not a good word there and is not a quote of the Dalai Lama. It certainly shouldn't be taken literally but any Buddhist student would know that or have it clarified early on. You will notice that nothing in that statement suggests that anger (or any other emotion) should be sublimated. The article you link to is not very helpful as it is a mish mash of two very different styles and levels of teaching/practice. It begins with a few statements about what the Dalai Lama says about the nature of anger but switches to examples of what Thich Nhat Hanh says to do about it. It is a very long page of disparate and disconnected thoughts about Buddhist views. Too long for me to go through looking for mention of what I already know. I'm not putting the information there down but it looks like a blog, an internecine conversation, that isn't useful for explaining the view (Hinayana or Vajrayana) to a neophyte. In short; Vajrayana Buddhism practice is a means of transforming negative emotions not sublimating them. The very act of sublimating or suppressing emotions prevents the opportunity to work with them which is what tantric practice is. By definition if you are sublimating your emotions you are not doing practice.