I am made to response instead of taking the easy way to ignore.
I'm sorry to drag you into this if it's a waste of your time.
While you read it as rhetorical and hostile, my impression is that the OP is confused and frustrated.
They haven't replied to any of the comment?
Their profile says, "I dont want your opinion,,,iam what iam i dont need to be what you want me to be iam free to be what i want;)"
They posted one question (not very 'well') in several sites, perhaps just experimenting?
Shouldn't the forum assumed any new user come here to ask or answer question is at least interested in Buddhism?
Usually yes. I read the question as being rhetorical ("my mind is already made up"), and hostile -- the question, not the user.
I'm also worried that if I read the question as having that tone, then (other people's answers) might reply to that same tone -- "Of course Buddhism as a system can claim to be true! How dare anyone etc.?" -- "No it's not" -- "Yes it is" -- etc.
I didn't want to have to moderate that.
If a new user gets the impression "Buddhists contradict each other" because s/he did write ... What could be the cause?
Because they do sometimes, maybe. I don't know that the OP is interested in the provenance of the various texts, though, however interesting that may be to other people -- it changes the focus of the question, does make it more answerable, but I'm not sure it's the OP's question any more.
If that is of interest it would be better to be more specific, IMO, e.g. "What's the history of the Chinese texts...?, "... of the Pali canon?", "... of the texts used in Vietnam?", etc.
It is my interest, but is it wrong or improper?
I don't know if it's 'wrong' in an absolutely sense, but is perhaps a topic we try to avoid on this site. E.g. we try to avoid ...
- Discussion not answers
- Inter-school hostility
... and therefore questions which may attract that kind of reply.
Is it possible to ask a question, to which,
Buddhism-as-a-system is best represented by the Chinese Mahayana -- Theravada are wrong because they don't acknowledge the perfectly-good Chinese texts -- and the Tibetans are wrong for some other reason (e.g. they're corrupted by Hindu texts) would not be an on-topic answer?
I exaggerate, but that kind of question ("Broad comparison") is defined as off-topic on this site for that kind of reason.
I think we try to avoid questions, to which an answer like that would be an answer to that question.
Like this one: "What is the basis of Lotus Sutta with respect to original Tipitaka?"
I downvoted that question at the time (I guess I was worried about it, I don't remember), but didn't close it (thought it was a question someone might reasonably and innocently and even usefully ask).
If you think the answers/comments are a problem, maybe it should have been closed sooner.
I try to read everything that's posted, but usually don't re-read old posts.
If you want me to moderate something then maybe 'flag' it for my attention. I haven't re-read those comments but a Search doesn't find the word "disgusting" on that page. Should I re-read (try to moderate) that whole page in detail?
the answers being voted up only reflected this forum is made up with and for certain sect
That (i.e. the way in which other people vote) is something I can do nothing about. If you find that (i.e. the way in which people choose to vote) offensive, perhaps that indicates that the question shouldn't be asked.
Maybe (perhaps very probably) that question should be tagged mahayana so that only answers from a Mahayana perspective would be on-topic.
I know even less less about Mahayana than I do about the Pali canon though, so, I'm not expert at moderating the content of questions about Mahayana.
This question has been sitting there for more than 15 months, without any moderator intervention.
If it's a problem perhaps post on Meta -- ask a question about it and/or propose a solution.
I just picked the one float up on the front page, there are surely more.
Thanks for the "heads-up".
I deleted the new answer which bumped it to the top of the Active view.
I have a lot of (other) work at the moment and am not following the news here as closely as usual.
Ideally "the community" (e.g. you) will tell moderators (e.g. me) if something needs a moderator's attention.
The fact that there's one 'bad' topic on the site doesn't mean we want another, though, though I apologise that moderation isn't perfectly consistent (also apologise that moderation is even needed).
And it ought to be, because any edition to cover a fact is "an offence of false speech"
I'm not sure.
"Lying" isn't simply "remaining silent", instead it's actively making an effort (producing words in order) to deceive.
And the definition of "right speech" that I've read is that, when words are disagreeable, "the Tathagata has a sense of the proper time to say them" -- and IMO the Community very clearly and nearly unanimously requested that this site should considered (and moderated) as not a place for inter-school hostility.
Reading few dated posts I infer this forum was initially started by a Theravadin Bhikkhu and few associated ones. I can understand that it's perhaps not in their intention to let Mahayana being a more interesting subject.
I don't think so: e.g. AndreiVolkov was and remains one of the original moderators and not a Theravadin Bhikkhu -- and I think chosen partly because he's not Theravadin.
Many early topics on Meta (about site policy) were about how to let schools co-exist on one site while minimising (perhaps some inevitable though regrettable) friction.
Many of the faq topics are about that, summarised in the "Minimizing controversy" section of the FAQ Index.
FYI I think that bikkhu left this site because he found controversy not worth-while.
But it doesn't want to use Theravada Buddhism, or simply Pali Canon because it wants bigger audience to boost its existence, so it has to call in the Mahayana.
I think "we" want the site to be a helpful, not-hostile resource for people (especially, people on the internet) with questions -- including questions about Mahayana.
Certainly I asked some myself.
It's difficult for me to ask more questions (because I don't know what to ask, and have limited time for study -- partly because moderation takes so many hours!) but I like to read other people's questions (and the answers).
Also I try to answer easy questions about the Pali canon so that other people (more expert) have more time for more difficult questions. I can't answer questions about Mahayana though, so I hope there are (and will remain) other people on the site who can and are willing.
How can Theravada represent Buddhism if they accept Lotus Sutra, or Nagarjuna?
I will stop, at this point.
But that is exactly the reason why I closed the OP's question -- i.e. because to answer it required somebody to represent "Buddhism-as-a-system", without being "a Buddhist" who some other Buddhists might disagree with.