See? You're not even capable of answering a straightforward question. What's that? A post hoc excuse? Really↗? • • • Priorities, Dave. The only point I'm making is that the splinter at hand has to do with standards of moderation. So if, for instance, I happen to agree that no, the post doesn't really warrant an infraction, you're too busy telling me off to stop and think about the circumstances in which it would be. You know, like, if someone other than me was in a bad enough mood. Inasmuch as you might wonder why↗ things are the way they are, around here, these sorts of discussions are not irrelevant to your inquiry; certainly, you can understand that part. And as far as the peanut gallery is concerned, you're also perfectly capable of comprehending the difference between "comments from the peanut gallery" and par for the course from the guy whose purpose is to be disruptive in his particular way and never intended to be taken seriously. Honestly, Dave, when you complain about the moderation, are you complaining toward a solution, or just to complain? I'm sorry if I don't have time to look up the specific formulation from the recent discussion, but it's something about a lack of ad hom or insults, except I don't understand how you or anyone else expect that to come about. Just for instance. It's kind of like Seattle's formulation for a better site compared to how his own conduct would disrupt that. What do you want me to do to ufologists that I'm supposed to spare white nationalists? And in re the peanut gallery, would you prefer more or less vapid bad faith? It's not a matter of not wanting comments from the peanut gallery; take a look around, Dave, and maybe none of us should be complaining about the moderation so much. Even you are snarling at the discussion about moderation. Think it through: Maybe the post doesn't warrant an infraction, but what about circumstances by which it does? It's annoying, intended to be provocative, and in that way off topic, but is it really worth a flag? Well, should the fact that I can spare it the annoyance warrant a flag? If your answer is no, then please think through what's actually going on, here. If you're okay with that prospect, then, sure, great, James would agree that it's a matter of how I wish to treat Foghorn. Should your peanut gallery line be construed as some sort of violation for attempting to legitimize low-grade trolling? Well, what standard do you want in effect? I'm sure I can make something up, but why would I? And then go back and look at how this splinter starts. As I told James, he set a standard by which he disqualifies himself in other issues; the example in question was actually farmed out to another splinter↗ in order to break up the episode into disparate pieces, but that example is what he is so upset about. Inasmuch as you wonder, and your inquiry about expectation, obfuscation, and moderation is sincere, then, yes, Dave, this is actually part of what goes into that. And these are some of the issues that make it harder to answer that inquiry more directly.