I wasn't worried about him, actually. The negative reactions and unwillingness to extrapolate where I see no puzzle bother my anti-process sensibilities. "Yes, yes, I suppose it might possibly be clear what the question is, at least to some obviously wrong radical fringe of the religion, but you forgot to jump through this hoop of which I am rather fond."

There is no religion involved, the rules for posters say "show some effort".

It's not the reader who has to put effort into finding out what n/t means.

Additionally this is no answer machine, we also write for the archives and want to be searchable.

Not criticising him would mean accepting that more and more people just wrote one liner in the title, is this what you want?

Anyway I wouldn't have considered him, especially in a ambiguous way between "reap" and "edit".

(Consideration is used too often and too sloppy lately)

I have the impression some people just downvote because they trust the consideration.

Cheers Rolf
_{(addicted to the Perl Programming Language and ☆☆☆☆ :)
Wikisyntax for the Monastery}