A few more comments:
on the constant lookout for that dangerous "chat."
There's absolutely nothing wrong with chat. It's simply not what we do here. If I called a meeting with some colleagues to discuss the project we're working on, I wouldn't want them talking to me about their ailing dog or last night's adventure at the supermarket, although I'd love to hear about those things over coffee when we all have some free time.
The forum provides some outlets for chat:
- conversations
- exclusive forums that are accessible to senior members who have been members for at least six months
Chat doesn't belong in the public language forums. Perhaps you are not aware that on average, 99%+ (yes, 99%+!) of the people browsing the forums at any given time are
not registered members but guests, the vast majority of whom are presumably consulting the forums because they looked for something in the dictionaries and the dictionary entries weren't sufficient. These people aren't interested in anyone's anecdotes about their annoying neighbor or the concert they enjoyed last year.
"Provide an example of what you're trying to say"
Indeed, answering questions about words/phrases
in context is our specialty. Since dictionaries are insufficient because they can't cover every conceivable context or unconventional/innovative use, the forums step in to fill in those gaps by offering real human insight about specific contexts. This doesn't work well if examples/contexts are withheld and people have to guess at what the intended meaning might be.
even when the poster's question is clear as a bell
What seems clear to you may not be clear to everyone else, and you may end up not being right because maybe you thought it was clear but were missing a crucial piece of information that changes everything. Besides, it's much more practical to insist on context in each case rather than try to scrutinize each and every question to try to determine if context is truly necessary. And there's certainly never any
harm to adding context.
I've actually had comments deleted for answering a pretty simple question because I didn't wait for "more context" after a moderator demanded it.
Rightly so. That's one of the most discourteous things anyone can do. When a moderator asks for context, they are saying that the question is not acceptable as is, but instead of closing or deleting the thread, they are giving the OP the opportunity to provide the suitable context. This is
not an opportunity for other members to jump in and answer the question anyway. Why anyone would think this is acceptable is beyond me. If you still feel like answering the question, you can do so privately, not in the thread.
