> And yet many on meta.math also felt they were distinctly unconstructive, to the point of overt rudeness -- including the most highly upvoted answer to that qu

> And yet many on meta.math also felt they were distinctly unconstructive, to the point of overt rudeness -- including the most highly upvoted answer to that question. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. I cannot disagree in the slightest with the idea that the politics and squabbling inherent to academia can be vicious and/or intense. I certainly do not think /this/ was an example of such however. Like I said earlier I understand there is some backstory I'm not seeing here -- perhaps this was just the very minor straw that broke the camel's back. If that's the case I think it would be a lot more understandable to people if that were clearly stated. Or, let me ask it another way: What would be the constructive way to ask whether high professional mathematician participation should be expected at a conference sponsored in part by someone who finds mathematicians exasperating and shows disdain for mathematics? Before you answer: I read the post that Prof. Clark linked to trying to demonstrate your self-expressed "disdain", and I read only that you felt you were terrible at math, not that you didn't like it. Pointing that out would have been much easier than deleting the comment I think, or pointing out that specific mis-interpretation as an example of non-politeness would have proved your point, but I didn't see you doing either. > And yet many on meta.math also felt they were distinctly unconstructive, to the point of overt rudeness -- including the most highly upvoted answer to that question. You say to-may-to, I say to-mah-to. You made me go back and check. You neglected to mention that the "deletion of the comments was questionable", which was the very next part of the highest-rated answer's comment. I suspect it was highest-rated because it is the answer pleading for compromise, but either way very near in the voting is an answer explicitly stating that Prof. Clark's comments were constructive and non ad hominem, and close behind is a comment from Prof. Clark himself. I don't see how trying to point to numbers on meta.math actually helps your case here, Jeff.