Big sigh ...!

Michael, @DavidReed This chat is not meant to host debates, and arguments.

@DavidReed Looking at the whole context, it appears that what was considered abrasive was that I was thought to be saying someone else's position was irrational. But in fact I was complaining about their lack of a position: It looked as if they had acted without looking. I cited an instance that I thought was obvious -- not one that I thought was a notably good question, but one that I thought was obviously not an "off-topic" question and was obviously not missing context or details.

One of the close-voters unhesitatingly agreed with me about that and said that closing that question was simply a mistake.

@DavidReed I did not suspect that some who read the question would think I was disagreeing with their position, but rather I thought they must not have read the question.

@DavidReed What I know for sure is that the way in which the review queue functions is that it would be difficult for any reasonable person to tolerate its behavior without anesthesia. You have to have a high tolerance for assembly-line work.

@DavidReed You cannot judiciously choose which things to review; you are handed something. As soon as you're done with a question, you are told what question to look at next.

@MichaelHardy Voila! I read many questions you've complained about, including the one you can simply walk away from, which remains open, too! I read all of them. I've read every question I've ever voted to close. You don't get that it can be reasonable to do so.

Michael, this is about the review queue, not about seeking constructive feedback. You're done here. You haven't responded to any of David Reed's suggestions. Please go someone else to spew your "blubber-speak" which you use to try to obliterate what the actual point of the matter is, to distract, to lay blame, and for you to explain how patient and all knowing you are, if only everyone could see the light.