I'm sorry I irritated you.
OK, I'd take issue with that. I like some of what Snarf posts here, and not others. This is an example of one I didn't like due to lack of editing, though I agree with his premise. Snarf didn't get to his thesis statement for literally 7 paragraphs and a video not related to his topic. He wrote far more than you did in your responses to me about...nothing. Paragraph on paragraph that had nothing to do with the topic, as if he were rambling to himself before beginning writing. At some point it should be fair to critique it particularly when the theme is "you can do too much sometimes," right?
Here is what I am talking about. You really think it's unfair of me to say hey, maybe edit your stuff? You show me the "thoughtful and rigorous" you mention in the beginning of this:
You left out another term I used, which was "entertaining." Which is the key difference between most of Snarff's posts and most of, say, mine.
However, the introduction that you cite does a lot more than entertain. It establishes narrative voice and tone. It acknowledges Snarff's long absence in the context of a joke that is also a bit of a satirical dig at the endlessly repetitive threads we have, such as arguing about what to call the upcoming revisions.
As well, it introduces a motif, Monsieur Creosote. Rather than assuming that everyone on this forum will get the allusion, it also offers a link to an entertaining video so you can be included in the joke.
And that motif is important. It will, in fact, be the crux of the argument and will be returned to repeatedly, including in the conclusion.
This is good writing. There is a unique voice, so that it reads like something only Snarff could have written (this is the most important advice I give my students: make it read like something only you could have written). There is good structure, with a clear path from beginning to end. The introduction is funny, it establishes purpose, it informs, and it hooks the audience.
I guess it's not for you. That's a question of taste. But there are a LOT of folks on this forum who could use an editor a lot more than Snarff, and I found your suggestion unfair and unkind. I think the main job of an editor on this forum, aside from correcting some egregious language errors, would be advising folks that if they have already made their point ten times, another ten posts probably isn't going to win the argument.
That would definitely get the word counts down.