"Please stop posting rhetorical questions" valid arguments for wrongdoing?

Question

Those in charge, feeling in charge or wishing to assist for better or own, as beneficial seen, interests, or that of others,

Obvious not pleased by question, no pleased by answer, a moderator in aversion, having been given power, deleted both here, just as a sample.

Case question:

Doing beloved a favor or ordain (leave them)?

There might be accrue doubts like: "Should I strive for the holy life an highest liberation or do those a favor whom I owe much gratitude?" often to trace, last seen here.

What is wise to advice, what would those firm in faith and wise advice?

*(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

How does such bias ever fit to the site owners interest and policy?

How does such ever fit to the teachings of the Buddha?

Not to speak of the fact that what ever question and answer will always be just rhetoric for those not capable to trace the essence in them.

How can such ever be valid justified?

Is a moderator with possible strong traumatic problems in regard of shave heads fit to moderate a Dhamma page or might it be more of harm for him and others, since first treatment for with traumatic issues is to avoid touch.

Perceiving the urgency:

Kula Sutta: On Families

"In every case where a family cannot hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons. Which four? They don't look for things that are lost. They don't repair things that have gotten old. They are immoderate in consuming food and drink. They place a woman or man of no virtue or principles in the position of authority. In every case where a family cannot hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons.

"In every case where a family can hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons. Which four? They look for things that are lost. They repair things that have gotten old. They are moderate in consuming food and drink. They place a virtuous, principled woman or man in the position of authority. In every case where a family can hold onto its great wealth for long, it is for one or another of these four reasons."

Feel free to take it as a opportunity to straighten right view or to nourish wrong views for less benefit. For liberation or staying caught or increase of bounds in the world.

(Note that this is not given for trade, exchange, stacks, entertainment and akusala deeds, but as a share of merits and to continue such for release)

Answer 1

How does such bias ever fit to the site owners interest and policy?

It is a policy of this site -- May I share my research, by posting questions on this site and self-answering them? -- an unusual policy, nevertheless a policy which a majority of the regular users on Meta seemed to prefer.

It's difficult to explain why without being rude (e.g. critical), so I won't try to explain at length again, maybe someone else can.

I know you may not agree with that, even so that is the policy (as defined by votes on Meta) -- and it is, as near as I can tell, the wish and expectation of the (often silent) majority or community of users on the site.

I'm not saying it's generally "wrong-doing", only it's not how people want to see the site being used

I see you answered a lot of other people's questions recently -- I hope that helps the people who asked those questions, and anyone who reads the answers with interest, perhaps even helped you.

Not to speak of the fact that what ever question and answer will always be just rhetoric for those not capable to trace the essence in them.

It's a technical term -- please read the introduction to "rhetorical question":

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked to make a point rather than to elicit an answer.[1] Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion ...

In common use I understood it as meaning, 'a question which you intend to answer yourself'.

"Do you know what I mean by that? Well let me tell you, I mean something like this as an example!"

Is a moderator with possible strong traumatic problems in regard of shave heads fit to moderate a Dhamma page

Would it be relevant to start by mentioning that "shaved heads" is partly a cultural phenomenon?

I realise that people who look like a Bhikkhu shouldn't be expected to "assault, beat you up, and humiliate" you.

But FYI a "shaved head" doesn't mean that in every country -- isn't always the sign of a Bhikkhu. As a youth, in England I learned to avoid (or to expect to be bullied or even beaten by) any "gangs" of youths on the street -- and some of those gang members had shaved heads (called "skin heads") as their uniform.

Similarly I can perhaps imagine who Andrei might have been talking about -- not a Bhikkhu at all.

Perhaps you misunderstood his message, too: I read it as saying that a shaved head is an example of a "sign" -- like a skirt might be a sign of a woman, for example -- and that people can irrationally associate signs.

Maybe, I don't know, the example was even meant to emphasise how irrational such an association (or how long-lived some early trauma) might be -- because obviously in the present day and present company a shaved head shouldn't be associated with violence -- as well as an example of a remarkable sign.