Instead, it had been considered (with the trite consideration that it still bears).

I was hoping you would see my 'trite' consideration and figure out why I chose that explanation. Which also leads to your point about multiple standards. There are indeed different standards for different folks here, just as there are different rules for different circumstances.

Multiple standards exist here for the same reason they exist elsewhere. Human nature. We don't hold initiatess to the same standard as saints. You are of course a member of the latter group and as such are held in the eyes of many to a higher standard. This is in fact a matter of respect and not disrespect. If you wandered down a path that ultimately proved frutiless then its probably a line of reasoning worth exposing to the community as other less experienced monks may wander that path without noticing the flaw. It was this reason that I considered the node as I did. I would prefer that monks like you leave bad arguments you've made up as instruction for others. Its why some my doozy stupid nodes are still online. I made an ass out of myself, and heres the proof... That way folks learn from my bad reasoning and also learn that just because im a saint i'm no less prone to stupidity than any other monk. ;-) Lastly in my eyes there is a big difference between deleting a dupe and deleting a bad argument and at least a few of the nodes you mention are dupe deletes.

My hope was that you would see the consideration comment and 'nuff said. I personally didn't care enough to make more than a snide comment. Although I thought you would get the humour of that comment too. :-)