The kernel's code of conduct, one week later

> Would you please stop that. Just stop it.

Fascinating -- haven't we all just now observed a *real-world* example, right here in the comments of LWN, of the sorts of interactions that all of this discussion about the CoC have centered around?

From my observation of this discussion, I have the following questions:

(a) Is it abuse to extrapolate, in response to another poster's alternate history, "ad absurdum" alternate history?
(b) Is it abuse if, in doing so, one off-handedly refers to the other poster as a "genocidal monster", and expecting the context of an obvious, but not explicitly stated "ad absurdum" comment to excuse the insult as good humor?
(c) Is it abuse if, in such an exchange, one poster feigns to not understand such a context in order to render the other's comment as abuse? Did such feigning just occur, or was there a genuine misunderstanding of intent (possibly on my own part)?
(d) Is it abuse to repeatedly imply that the other has not read your comment, when a more generous interpretation would assume that they were responding to it?

After all the discussion had on the CoC -- I'd really love to see how the principles aspired to can be applied to this exchange?