> "It manages to be serious, not overly tendentious, and packed full of information." Odd. I found it to be lacking in valuable information. There was no ind

> "It manages to be serious, not overly tendentious, and packed full of information." Odd. I found it to be lacking in valuable information. There was no indication as to whether there had been any new manuscript discoveries (though the sidebar indicates the writings are being newly published). There was no indication as to anything particularly surprising about his views other than the era in which they occurred. "There was a guy a few centuries back who agreed with modern sexual mores, and it wasn't published because society wasn't open to it a few centuries back" doesn't strike me as a particularly valuable contribution. Obviously some people saw it as such or it wouldn't have gotten so many upvotes -- but obviously others saw it as not belonging. > "responding to something off-topic" It was a direct quote from the article. In fact, it was the quote from the article that I thought pushed it over the line into flagging territory. Even so, I'm not sure why you think my response was a fast track to a flamewar. I think my response was measured and calm, clearly explaining why the comment in the original post was problematic, and furthermore adding information people might not be aware of (that Sodom wasn't following modern "not your business what consenting adults do" practice; "rape culture" was alive and well there.) I would expect people reading such a comment to come away with better understanding, and perhaps not be so quick to treat Sodom as modern/enlightened.