. I noticed the "cleanup", repeated the Sysrq comment (numbered 1 below), because there is nothing wrong with it, and fearing the follow-up would be deleted too,

So you're aware a comment clean up happened, and felt you know better.

I have flagged your comment and I'll keep posting my warning. The question is about a Mac, but that does not give you any reason to say "so this is the same for almost any OS".

Uh... and you're pretty adament on reposting that warning, even if its cleaned up.

At some point, its just worth deciding that maybe, just maybe that comment isn't that important. Especially as, in context, as someone mentioned, that key does not exist

OK, an analogy to illustrate my point. A asks "Are scorpions dangerous?". B answers: "Yes. This is true for almost any arachnid." C comments (not answers): "That is innacurate. Horseshoe crabs, for example, are arachnids but are not dangerous.". B: "Shut up, this is about scorpions." A asked about scorpions, B extended his answer to arachnids, C added true information about non-dangerous arachnids. Are you going to wipe C's records? Is that harassing? B does not even need to heed C's remarks if he doesn't wa

People care about scorpions, and the comment about "Yes, this is true for almost any arachnid" would be deleted. People would probably remind the person posting such an answer to keep it on scope. The question is about scorpions. Not Arachnids, or Horseshoe crabs.

If you kept posting about arachnids, or worse sealions, especially after rolks asked you not to we'd have an issue.

Practically, if something gets deleted, reposting it isn't a good idea. Threatening to repost it is a worse idea.

Good comments often either improve the question or the answer, not act as a space for fragmentary orphaned information.

. I noticed the "cleanup", repeated the SysRq comment (numbered 1 below), because there is nothing wrong with it, and fearing the follow-up would be deleted too,

So you're aware a comment clean up happened and felt you know better.

I have flagged your comment and I'll keep posting my warning. The question is about a Mac, but that does not give you any reason to say "so this is the same for almost any OS".

Uh... and you're pretty adamant on reposting that warning, even if it's cleaned up.

At some point, it's just worth deciding that maybe, just maybe that comment isn't that important. Especially as, in context, as someone mentioned, that key does not exist

OK, an analogy to illustrate my point. A asks "Are scorpions dangerous?". B answers: "Yes. This is true for almost any arachnid." C comments (not answers): "That is inaccurate. Horseshoe crabs, for example, are arachnids but are not dangerous.". B: "Shut up, this is about scorpions." A asked about scorpions, B extended his answer to arachnids, C added true information about non-dangerous arachnids. Are you going to wipe C's records? Is that harassing? B does not even need to heed C's remarks if he doesn't want

People care about scorpions, and the comment about "Yes, this is true for almost any arachnid" would be deleted. People would probably remind the person posting such an answer to keep it on scope. The question is about scorpions. Not Arachnids, or Horseshoe crabs.

If you kept posting about arachnids, or worse sea lions, especially after folks asked you not to we'd have an issue.

Practically, if something gets deleted, reposting it isn't a good idea. Threatening to repost it is a worse idea.

Good comments often either improve the question or the answer, not act as a space for fragmentary orphaned information.