<p>Thanks for commenting. It's always nice to see @nickcox stepping up to field and adjudicate queries on behalf of other senior participants with his usual considered and, for the most part, fair points. </p>

<p>To his point about "irregular verbs," I would only add that the syllogism, "I make fair comments, you are sometimes contentious," is an illocutionary statement representing a ubiquitous human failing: to wit, <em>everybody</em> thinks they are correct, right, even-handed, objective, fair, whatever -- everybody. This is true even for the most vicious and psychotic trolls that inhabit the universe of online social media. The obvious, implicit assumption here is that one is speaking from an authoritative position -- a highly dubious assumption.</p>

<p>And to the point about "the long tail of questions," a moderator once noted that as much as 30% of questions posted to CV go unresponded to and/or unanswered. There are many reasons for this but that's not my concern. In my view, the real "long tail" here revolves around nursing and rehearsing hoary grudges, the revelatory descent into which does little or nothing to ameliorate fraught relationships. Just so, baiting and/or goading participants into arguments serving no purpose other than scoring passive-aggressive points may be "what the other guy is said to be," but such comments absolve their speaker from any personal responsibility or involvement in perpetuating undesireable communications. While a few participants get sanctioned, "tarred and feathered" or run out on a rail for extreme behaviors along these lines, this is little more than scapegoating -- a true "bandwagon" effect. Not to mention that it's well known (i.e., readily observable) that more than a few senior CV participants stoop to openly, even frequently, venting their impatience and irritability with other, less senior participants without sanction. As noted, such are the downside hazards of any forum, technical or otherwise. </p>

<p>Coming back to the main point, the concern expressed in my query has to do with knee-jerk votes for closure simply due to the fact that a question may not be up to some participant's high standards of communication wrt statistical issues. The examples provided were an effort at illustrating the ubiquity of this phenomenon. The <em>Uber</em> simulation question may be one of the best examples as the back-and-forth in the range and diversity of opinions for closure is quite explicit. @Tim does the best job of articulating a view in favor of retention. </p>

<p>My (probably unrealistic) hope is that, by shedding light on such ill-considered behaviors, some blunting of their momentum may take place. </p>
