As already said, context matters; and then, taking absolutes as an argument gives a false picture, because if, say, Old Gray Bear was "foul mouthed" in one post, how many such posts of BrowserUk are needed to weigh against that?

See.

But even percentage is wrong, misleading (and off the point), because to get an accurate picture, you would need to conduct a thorough survey of the net effect of BrowserUk's incriminated posts (for "bad language"! seriously? Pipi Kaka Furz?) in an infallible manner. Pulling out only bad words is bad science, as is evaluating the nodes reputation. Many things get downvoted offhand; but they may yield effect, even to the point where one's downvoting is seen later as erroneous.

The effect on each of our fellow monks is always individual and cannot be measured by statistics because... well, because it is individual, an effect caused on an individual mind, with its own settings, background, temporary conditions, parents, condition of spouse and whatnot.

So, this compilation amounts to "he said jehovah! let's stone him!"

Congratulations on your mission to save the Perl hoi polloi from our crap algorithms and wrongthink.

Hmm... nosepicking.?