I suggest that you actually read the SEP entry on meta-ethics instead of just linking there - if you did read it, feel free to correct my guess.

Good guess. If I have read it, it wasn't within the last year. I will follow your advice and do so now.

Metaethics does not mean what you said it did (metaethics is a theory of what morality is, not a way of comparing moralities)

Poor choice of wording on my part. I meant to say that comparing moralities is one of the things that meta-ethics covers; that if you are engaged in comparing moralities, you are doing meta-ethics. Is this wrong?

moral realism does not mean what you said it did (your belief that morality is a real thing out there constitutes moral realism)

I didn't understand this bit. Is the thing in parenthesis meant to exemplefy what I said, or is it your correction of what I said? If the latter, then you may have misunderstood what I said. My fault, no doubt.

I also have to ask whether you read the Metaethics Sequence, but I mostly regard that sequence as having failed so I won't be surprised if the answer is yes.

Actually, I have read most of it, and I agree with your assessment. Where I understood it, I frequently disagreed.

I'm disappointed that my lack of scholarship in ethical philosophy was a barrier to your completing the reading of my posting. I will try to do better next time.

ETA: Until I have a chance to rewrite - I have placed the most muddled parts of my posting in a kind of 'posted quarantine' so that readers may skip over them, if they wish. And I want to thank Eliezer for his critique - I neglected to do so in my initial response.