Cool. Yesterday ELU owners were very open. They confessed me that they exist to enforce the absurdish "demonstrate your research " rule they have on the site. They literally confessed that the only acceptable etymology questions are those which can be answered with Online Etymology Dictionary and Wikipedia. I should not hope to receive answers other than those that can be answered with OED or Yahoo. Basically, I should ask only for them to earn reputation copying the material from those sites! That is SO is all about -- to (earn reputation and) be useless. If you try to make it useful, ask for information that is not easily available from well known sources, stop using SO! That is, SO is defined as useless service.
Yes, you should demonstrate the research by copy-pasting the corresponding articles from the OED into your question. Obviously, sane person posts a question only if you cannot find the answer in the OED/Yahoo/Google. Yet, they say, that you should stop being sane person and post some garbage from OED, no matter what. It is a garbage because it only shows that it does not answer the question and is, therefore, irrelevant. But, nevertheless, they insist that you must clutter your question with the irrelevant garbage in order to improve the quality! Otherwise, your question will be closed. Moreover, it will be closed anyway since fullfilling the rule means that you have already demonstrated that OED does not contain the answer, which automatically means that your question cannot be answered by ELU "experts", as explained above! They are eager to close the question if they cannot find the answer in the OED. What are these linguists who are just OED-copy bots? Are they affiliated with OED organization?
They are bots indeed. Only bots can ask you a stupid question "why do you not leave leave our monopoly service if you do not like our rules?", "why don't you leave the site if you cannot find your answer in the OED/Wikipedia, stupid", "why do you challenge and try to discuss the our monopoly rules if you can just leave it (and die)? Indeed, why would normal person resort to a popular English language site if it cannot find the answer in the Internet and who am I to discuss the rules? Normal people leave the monopoly when they see that rules (given by gods) are wrong. Monopolies exist for everybody to follow their rules, not to challenge them. Only stupid people think that monopolies must have the best rules because you have no way around them. No, there are Gods to write the rules for the monopoly. You will never be one of them, says one of SO gatekeepers. How did he know?
Along the way, the mocked guess that Germination of Hermeneutics can be etymologically related with the idea that it is as stupid as buck vs fuck or guessing that Saddam Hussein is related to Barrak Hussein. Indeed, how can you dare to contrast fault vs default if anybody can assume etymological relation between seemingly arbitrary words, like window and grass? Husseins are different people, stupid! How can two different Husseins bear one name, idiot! This undeniably confirms that two words may be different even if their spelling is identical. How can you dare to contrast the words which have slightly different spelling? This is a kind of logic (actually nonsense) these site owners use to attack your. They attack you with all kind of nonsense and ask to leave. Is it a conspiracy? What is agenda? Disrupting the site with cruel trolling? Educating the public to be obedient to the “Gods”? What is the purpose?
On 7th of march, I complained about mayhem to the polyglots (A room for discussions on general improvements of language sites.). And, what do you think? Sure enough, my “rant” was eliminated immediately as contradicting to the purpose of their site. Yes, discussing the site problems and making sites useful certainly contradicts the general idea of site improvement. Once, I pointed this terrible logic out, the gatekeeper offered another cover up for their gang: he labelled my complaint "a monologue, a wall of text" saying that it is non-construcitve.
Indeed, how can you discuss anyting when you start with a monologue from the very beginning? No discussion can be kicked off like that. Look at the conferences. No discussion starts with a presentation/monologue. Nobody starts a discussion with the words "here we have a problem". It would be not constructive because it is a rant (you do not like thomething) and monologue.
In fact, these are you who monologue, command me spitting at whatever I say. Sure enough, my complaint is a monologue for you! We should start discussing the problems by silencing them. "Rant" is a magic word. It means that "if you do not like something that you are an ugly wanker and not worthy to be listened to. You must listen to us instead. It is exactly what Carl Popper said in his " thesis-antithesis-synthesis" approach that no construction should start from thesis or its criticism. Fortunately, we live in the marxist world of concrete, unpenetrable or "reinforced dogmatism".