> How do you call removing harmless humor in comments

is not harmless if you make fun of someone's fears. I can also argue that it is partially against our "be nice" policy, and that is exactly what I have to defend as a mod.

> claim the author is "spreading disinformation" because they wrote "things come in threes...", according to you to "protect" "a user that obviously did not understand another joke in another comment" that was not mine.

yes, they obviously did not get a previous joke, you saw that, and you piled up with another joke at that user expense. you were not having fun with them, you were making fun of them, that's not fun, that's not nice. Protecting a user from this is my duty as a mod.

> Disinformation!, not less... I swear I'm not a Russian agency interfering in politics...

despite the current climate, disinformation is a word that has a meaning that can be applied to different contexts. In this case, saying to a user that is afraid of a possible future accident that (paraphrasing) "a third accident is imminent" is disinformation (and could be used as a basis of a conspiracy theory, something we don't want, as per Jay Carr's answer )

and if you don't trust me, you can ask for @Farhan and/or @Jamiec's opinions, they have access to all the data required to comment on this.

I'm tended to agree - humour in comments is fine, blatantly making fun of someone's misconception (be it about statistical probability, or aviation knowledge or anything really) is not cool.

During the 2017 eclipse, the STJ airport in Missouri blocked off part of taxiways for eclipse viewers, then filled the remaining taxiways and runways with parked aircraft.

They had a plan to fill up the entire airport and then close it down; leaving just enough runway for departing traffic after the eclipse.

Ultimately, because of bad eclipse viewing conditions (cloudy), not as many planes arrived as originally planned, and they didn't end up closing the airport.

But it never sat well with me that they were prepared to close down, leaving not even emergency space for GA aircraft, after turning over much of the active space to spectators and transient parking.

If it were up to me, I'd think there should be a minimum amount of runway that should always be available. Runways and taxiways should not be closed for "special events" unless enough space remains for the airport to continue to function.

Yeah. Sometimes it's unavoidable to close runways completely (e.g. for maintenance, or even SNOCLO), but it's not great to close them unnecessarily.

I'm less worried about taxiways. If you're closing the whole airport but just leaving a runway available for emergencies, then the mayday aircraft can just close down on the runway; you don't need a taxiway for an emergency. And even if the airport is open, most airports have more taxiway space than they need, they have extra capacity to make things go faster. As long as they NOTAM the closure and place the appropriate markings, I'm happy with taxiway closures.

Also, I agree that the topic is interesting, and I might edit the question to be more answerable (and less ranty).

When they close the main runway at Cambridge for maintenance, they just NOTAM it and make big white crosses at either threshold to mark it as closed.

@Federico : Interesting explanation for sure, I don't agree with your presentation of facts (or rather opinions).

@mins That is fine. ALL of us don't have to agree on everything. The problem with your comment of 136 people died in two accidents, another accident is about to happen in the near future is being considered humorous. I agree with @Federico and @Jamiec that the comment should be deleted but I do not find it funny at all, and don't understand that how you related it to be hilarious.