user254: Here's a transcript of comments under this answer:


This answer make sutta conflict themselves although the sutta never conflict in this case. If you use "sakko kāyo sakkāyo" in [Sakkāyasutta][6], Sakkāyasutta, which has only sakko, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of [Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ][5], which has both sakko and paro. – Bonn 9 hours ago       
No. This is unrelated to what i posted. Just because there is external kaya does not mean 'sakkaya ditthi' refers to external kaya. 'Sakkaya' is not found in MN 10 therefore your idea sounds very wrong & mistaken – Dhammadhatu 7 hours ago       
If you can not compare between Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta, and MN 10 then mix it together, it means you have not enough skill to describe sakkāya-diṭṭhi. – Bonn 7 hours ago      
I just read someone refuting your mistakes on Dhammawheel. If you wish to debate, you should post there & not here. On Dhammawheel, i have never observed once your posts not shown to be wrong. – Dhammadhatu 6 hours ago       
No one refuting me in Dhammawheel, they trying to understand what I am describing. They are not like you, don't decide them like that.dhammawheel.com/… – Bonn 6 hours ago      
Also, you can debate me. So if you can do, why I can not act like you? – Bonn 6 hours ago      
This forum is not for debating. – Dhammadhatu 5 hours ago      
On DW, someone told you sakkaya is not kayanupassana because sakkaya is dhammanupassana, – Dhammadhatu 5 hours ago       
Even though your quote still be uneducated debate. I wrote "Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ". Saccapabba is in dhammānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna, not kāyānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna. I wrote right, he read wrong, what I can do? – Bonn 5 hours ago       
Also, Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta which I comparing to MN10 is talking about sacca-pabba in dhammānupassanāsatipaṭṭhāna. Why he refer to kāyānupassanāsatipaṭṭhāna? – Bonn 5 hours ago     
So your quote trying to distort my answer. Why? Because you love to debate, not to understand. – Bonn 5 hours ago      


I have highlighted:

Phrases where someone comments on "you" instead of on the text
Phrases which are a reply to a comment about you.

So,

Don't you think the discussion would be better without "you"?
Could you try to avoid criticising "you" in future, and stick to the text?

Also what should a moderator do with comments like these?

Pretend to ignore that it seems partially hostile?
Delete everything?
Move it all to chat?
Edit specific comments and delete others?

It's work but moderators are able to edit comments --

See When should moderators edit comments?
But see also Modifying comments which shows that even a small edit can confuse people.


user-1: I just skimmed it a bit and think you've handled it perfectly by moving it to a different page.

Ignoring: no, 
Editing only some: no, there are two parties in a
quarrel (at least),
Deleting everything: no.

Plus this, I agree also with:

When editing comments for tone, you should strive to make the smallest edit necessary to correct the problem. You should also generally leave a comment advising the comment's author against such faux pas in the future! Such commentary helps to avoid the appearance of deceit.


254: <p>Here's a transcript of comments under <a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/25465/254">this answer</a>:</p>

<blockquote>
  <ul>
  <li>This answer make sutta conflict themselves although the sutta never conflict in this case. If you use "sakko kāyo sakkāyo" in [Sakkāyasutta][6], Sakkāyasutta, which has only sakko, will conflict with Sacca-pabba of [Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ][5], which has both sakko and paro. – Bonn 9 hours ago       </li>
  <li>No. This is unrelated to what i posted. Just because there is external kaya does not mean 'sakkaya ditthi' refers to external kaya. 'Sakkaya' is not found in MN 10 <strong>therefore your idea sounds very wrong &amp; mistaken</strong> – Dhammadhatu 7 hours ago       </li>
  <li>If you can not compare between Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta, and MN 10 then mix it together, it means <strong>you have not enough skill</strong> to describe sakkāya-diṭṭhi. – Bonn 7 hours ago      </li>
  <li><strong>I just read someone refuting your mistakes on Dhammawheel. If you wish to debate, you should post there &amp; not here. On Dhammawheel, i have never observed once your posts not shown to be wrong.</strong> – Dhammadhatu 6 hours ago       </li>
  <li><strong>No one refuting me in Dhammawheel, they trying to understand what I am describing. They are not like you, don't decide them like that.dhammawheel.com/</strong>… – Bonn 6 hours ago      </li>
  <li><strong>Also, you can debate me. So if you can do, why I can not act like you?</strong> – Bonn 6 hours ago      </li>
  <li><strong>This forum is not for debating.</strong> – Dhammadhatu 5 hours ago      </li>
  <li><strong>On DW, someone told you</strong> sakkaya is not kayanupassana because sakkaya is dhammanupassana, – Dhammadhatu 5 hours ago       </li>
  <li><strong>Even though your quote still be uneducated debate.</strong> I wrote "Sutta. Ma. Mū. Sacca-pabba of Satipaṭṭhānasuttaṃ". Saccapabba is in dhammānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna, not kāyānupassanā-satipaṭṭhāna. <strong>I wrote right, he read wrong, what I can do?</strong> – Bonn 5 hours ago       </li>
  <li>Also, Sutta. Saṃ. Kha. Sakkāyasutta which I comparing to MN10 is talking about sacca-pabba in dhammānupassanāsatipaṭṭhāna. Why he refer to kāyānupassanāsatipaṭṭhāna? – Bonn 5 hours ago     </li>
  <li><strong>So your quote trying to distort my answer. Why? Because you love to debate, not to understand.</strong> – Bonn 5 hours ago      </li>
  </ul>
</blockquote>

<p>I have highlighted:</p>

<ul>
<li>Phrases where someone comments on "you" instead of on the text</li>
<li>Phrases which are a reply to a comment about you.</li>
</ul>

<p>So,</p>

<ul>
<li>Don't you think the discussion would be better without "you"?</li>
<li>Could you try to avoid criticising "you" in future, and stick to the text?</li>
</ul>

<p>Also what should a moderator do with comments like these?</p>

<ul>
<li>Pretend to ignore that it seems partially hostile?</li>
<li>Delete everything?</li>
<li>Move it all to chat?</li>
<li>Edit specific comments and delete others?</li>
</ul>

<p>It's work but moderators are able to edit comments --</p>

<ul>
<li>See <a href="https://meta.stackexchange.com/a/238095/139866">When should moderators edit comments?</a></li>
<li>But see also <a href="https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1634/254">Modifying comments</a> which shows that even a small edit can confuse people.</li>
</ul>
 -1: <p>I just skimmed it a bit and think you've handled it perfectly by moving it to a different page.</p>

<ul>
<li>Ignoring: no, </li>
<li>Editing only some: no, there are two parties in a
quarrel (at least),</li>
<li>Deleting everything: no.</li>
</ul>

<p>Plus this, I agree also with:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>When editing comments for tone, you should strive to make the smallest edit necessary to correct the problem. You should also generally leave a comment advising the comment's author against such faux pas in the future! Such commentary helps to avoid the appearance of deceit.</p>
</blockquote>
