@amWhy thank you for the additional remark. Enjoy the rest of your weekend and see you!

@XanderHenderson Hello. Can you please have a go through this math.stackexchange.com/q/4176103/876009 ? Here seriously the OP hasn't provided any context. The main problem doesn't lie here. A lot of abusive words are present in the question comment. People trying to make OP importance of context are being abused very badly. Please delete this question for bad comments as well as to conserve the value of EoQS

Please take my message seriously @XanderHenderson because you are the only active mod

Thanks @XanderHenderson ,if you have deleted the abusive comments, for deleting the abusive comments

@Moderators Hello. I want to keep posting my opinions on Meta which may be heavily downvoted. I want to be sure that you would not suspend me for low-quality contributions.

@Later Controversial opinions on meta (that obey guidelines) do not necessarily equate to low-quality answers e.g. a score of -10 on meta does not convey the same as a score of -10 on main.

@XanderHenderson With regards to the local martingale/quadratic variation question, math.stackexchange.com/questions/4176103, I am glad you stepped in and removed the non-productive argument in the comment chain. However, I disagree with you unilaterally closing the question.

I thought that ample context was provided, and that this seemed not an effort to get a quick homework answer in. If OP is asking about a potential method to solve another problem, then they clearly have put some thought of their own into the problem.

@Later Your question is to ambiguous. Please speak directly, without insinuations.

@Later The problem with demanding the right to publish your opinions is that you opinions have been, largely, judgements of, calls for actions against, both facts and informed opinions of others. You talk past us. You demand we listen to you, while at the same time, you rant about being unable to, due to *others expressing their right to opinions, and more importantly, their right to provide you with object information, and links. So Do not insist on expressing your wisdom, until you

finally, reciprocate, and honor others' rights to share information, experience, and opinions.

Do not demand anything that you are not willing to provide to others.

@amWhy You made many accusations against me. I need some evidence to support your claims.

Please only use flags for spam or offensive messages. They draw the attention of all users with 10k+ reputation, as well as all moderators, currently in chat. That message is neither spam, nor offensive, and should not have been flagged. See the FAQ for more. If you found that message inappropriate, please let @TheAmplitwist know in a calm and constructive manner

@cairdcoinheringaahing ??

"Not offensive" lol ok

I didn't read that as offensive. If you disagree, feel free to disregard what I said

@TheAmplitwist: Speculating on others' mental conditions or other sensitive topics is not acceptable. You can describe how another user's behavior may have an impact on other users or what they are trying to accomplish or suggest improvements, but those types of broad assumptions or speculations add nothing and aren't productive, and could be seen as offensive.

Quoting the code of conduct,

> No subtle put-downs or unfriendly language. Even if you don’t intend it, this can have a negative impact on others.

@hyper-neutrino good explanation

Firstly speculating that someone may be on the autism spectrum, and secondly implying that that's a negative and is inhibiting their productivity is considered unfriendly in my opinion, and hopefully that was not your intention, but hopefully you also see how this could be seen negatively or be insulting to not only the user you were talking to but other people as well.

Good point @hyper. Sorry for my misunderstanding everyone, I genuinely didn't understand it to be offensive when I first read it

Not offensive nor rude, but maybe I am just not that sensitive; I think it was definitely not the nicest, though.

@lila Agreed - definitely not nice, but I was disagreeing that it deserved an offensive flag. I can understand how others would disagree with that however

It's one of those corner-case situations where I'd dismiss the flag and still delete the message.

@hyper-neutrino Thanks for taking the time to explain. I did not realise that there was a negative implication anywhere in what I wrote, but of course I am ready to accept that I could be mistaken. I seem to have caused a bit of a stir in this chatroom quite unnecessarily. My apologies for this, as well as for my words that may have hurt anyone.

Now that the offending comment has been removed, perhaps the rest of this conversation could be cleaned up as well?

I think it's worth keeping around as an example of what to do when flags can be vague (unless the owners/users of this room disagree) :)

Sure, that works as well.

@TheAmplitwist I came in just now, and have no clue what was said exactly, nor is it immediately clear who said it. Cheers.

Hello @amWhy. It was a faux pas on my part (to put it mildly, I suppose): I crafted a reply to this message that caused the above exchange. Thanks for checking up, I'll endeavor to be less of a nuisance with my words in the future :)

@TheAmplitwist I wrote what I said, because I do not think you need to worry about the earlier exchange. I know you well enough to know that you have a good heart; we all say things we regret later. You're actually a refreshingly good sport in all of this. That's not terribly common with many math.se users, whose first instinct is to respond defensively, in anger. Take good care!

@TheAmplitwist at least you managed to make it so that many mods are pingable here. ;-)