@LSpice I found a begging of a message from you: "LSpice: Although later discussion has clarified it, this FAQ does not seem to address ambiguity (...." (in my inbox).

I guess that it was the deleted message above.

But since you've deleted the message, you have probably the answer you've needed.

The whole discussion on meta gives an impression that MO users do not like to read FAQ - and they prefer guessing or experimenting...

I meant to write "beginning" rather then "begging".

@MartinSleziak You are right. I looked through the FAQ quickly and did not see the remark about reverse chronological order; but then on second glance I saw it.

@MartinSleziak I do not find this such a terrible thing! It seems to be a very scientific or mathematical mindset, to test something yourself rather than to take someone's word for it.

But of course it must be frustrating for someone as versed in the site literature as you are to have it be ignored. I always appreciate your sharing your deep and varied expertise on these meta posts.

@LSpice I definitely do not consider myself well-versed in inner workings of the Stack Exchange software.

In any case, there were a few comments where some people made claims/guesses/suggestions which contradicted the FAQ on the issue.

Certainly, such things happen. (I remember several posts by MO moderators with claims that were incorrect.)

@MartinSleziak I don't speak to your knowledge of the software, but your knowledge of the literature on the site (FAQs and previous questions) is immense, or at least has been equal to any task to which I have seen it put. 😄