Thanks for the link... of benefit to all of us, given that members too are expected to self-moderate.
Meta-discussion isn't necessarily always bad in and of itself (in fact, that article was a productive form of meta-discussion, if you think about it) but it certainly can be a distraction from Dhamma discussion, and can become tiresome after a while.
If members think any particular discussion is becoming too "meta" (and thus, off-topic), feel free to make a report to the moderators and we'll investigate... possibly either splitting the meta-discussion off elsewhere, removing it completely, or simply by doing our best to get the discussion...
Let us never forget to treat other members with respect - this is a vital aspect of online communications, particularly when the only media available to us are words and emoticons.
"Having understood name-and-form, which is a product of prolificity,
And which is the root of all malady within and without,
He is released from bondage to the root of all maladies,
That Such-like-one is truly known as 'the one who has understood'." (Snp 3.6)
"Whether I were to preach in brief, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach in detail, Sāriputta, or whether I were to preach both in brief or in detail, Sāriputta, rare are those who understand." (A I 333, Sāriputtasutta)