If you still want to stand by your statement, then I think I deserve to see at least one example of what you are talking about.

I made my previous reply to you simply out of courtesy, and went out of my way to leave the option open for you to dismiss my objection as merely subjective - yet that was negatively received (by the metric of votes). I viscerally dislike it when I respond to questions in good faith and am penalized for doing so. I further assert (somewhat frequently) as a matter of general principle that nobody has the right to demand replies when making those replies can be expected to be detrimental for whatever reason - but almost always for some reason of social political nature. In this sense I oppose the sentiment and conclusion of your post from even more years back - Agree, retort or ignore. It introduces one more highly gamable social rule that would be a net detriment if adopted as a norm.

The above in mind I erased the draft reply I had - posting it would be an outright violation of my principles. I have no problem with accruing disapproval for expressing my own points, but actively provoking disapproval for the purpose of just answering a query of another when I would otherwise not have an interest in speaking on the subject? That's an entirely different matter!

If you still want to stand by your statement

I'll make no further stand here - and note that the stand I took here is against the position taken by your fanboy, not against you. In the unlikely event that David_Gerard or anyone else once again nominates Wei_Dai for an all-time "Turn The Other Cheek" award I will naturally take personal offense, sincerely, publicly and vocally.

"flagrant", which my dictionary defines as "Conspicuously bad, offensive, or reprehensible"

Just for what it's worth, I think that's a poor definition. The actual meaning is more like "conspicuous", with a connotation of badness (etc.).