@Tom Wijsman: I'm not finding it here in my profile in "meta" and when I click on "network profile" I'm lead to this page where I'm not logged in (and can't login, as detailed in my question): stackexchange.com/users/1024585/randolf-richardson (...then if I click on "meta" there I find myself logged in as that other user named "Complicated see bio" which was involved in the merger problems.)

@random: It certainly is perplexing. I wonder if something subtle was slightly off-track somewhere -- maybe my account was created during a short moment in time when there was some bad code in place? (That's just a wild guess.)

"Valued Community Members" is a Trade Mark?

@Daniel Beck: Post a new question about that in meta and I'll upvote it.

Thanks, your explanation (and the answer you linked to) is very helpful.

The same thing happens in Opera for me too. That's peculiar.

Also try Googling for "Windowz 7" (the crackerz have lotz o' gud info. 2!); to search for both in a single operation, type this exact text (including the quotation marks) into Google: "(Windows 7|Windowz 7)"

@slhck: That's the "tough call" factor, for sure (and I'm not too worried about it in this particular case either). If something does seem tricky to judge though, I find it's sometimes useful to consider an opposite-hypothetical of if the example text used was based on, say, for this situation, some texts from an outspoken evil cult that worships some destructive devil deity. In this particular case, it would probably still not be a problem for me, but I suspect that there would be a lot more objection about the content given the general popularity of non-evil-focused religions.

@slhck: I think your example about Mac enthusiasm is an excellent one that demonstrates over-hype (which detracts from the quality of S.U.), which is very different from someone suggesting a solution to a problem and qualifying their reason for recommending it (e.g., "this product works well for me because it doesn't consume massive amounts of system resources, and it finishes its tasks quickly without prompting the user to make a lot of complicated decisions").

@slhck: ...and therein lies the problem. I already upvoted your answer because I agree with acting on something when it comes up. However, there is also something to be said for encouraging people not to push their morals on others as seems to be common with people who hold extreme viewpoints on religious matters (and purposely mix their doctrine in to every communication with the intention of trying to convert the world, and such nonsense). There are forums (and newsgroups, etc.) that are suited for religious discussion, and the espousing of religious views is definitely a misfit for S.U.

@slhck: I generally agree with you (+1), but I'm concerned about where the line should be drawn. For a non-religious example with dress code, co-workers obviously won't tolerate a nudist who insists on coming to work completely nude, but a certain type of clothing may or may not be tolerable to others -- is it okay to wear a swimsuit to work during summer? What about during winter? What if it's a two-piece string bikini? At least some people may be deeply offended, for a variety of reasons. If a line must be drawn, figuring out where to draw it is the most difficult aspect of this issue.

@Daniel Beck: I wasn't suggesting imitating corporate policies (I don't see how "moronic" applies), rather I mentioned corporate policies as an example where this approach is used successfully since religious views are not relevant in most work environments. I certainly wasn't suggesting the removal of references to national/seasonal holidays (it's not clear to me how you came to this conclusion). The value of not dragging religious views into technical matters about computers is in having a message that's better focused. Your response serves as an example of how touchy this matter is.

Those two answers you posted were not written by me. Might they be Pascal's?