It's interesting because that article (at the time) struck me as an excellent piece of rhetoric - and the provoked discussion was good. Don't confuse controver

It's interesting because that article (at the time) struck me as an excellent piece of rhetoric - and the provoked discussion was good. Don't confuse controversial arguments ("What's a disease? Or: shoud fat/shy/alcoholic people be blamed or treated?") with flamebating/ranting ("Law enforcement has apparently become an arm of AT&T and Apple") > You should try to use a more objective standard when flagging posts. Surely: poor arguments (as in bad rhetoric - such as fallacies), flames/baiting and so forth are suitable objective standards. What else would you recommend to use? (honest question; I can think of nothing much)