` :::So, you first make a claim that I wasn't uncivil on your talk page, but then you support my block for being uncivil, something you didn't think I was, on the grounds that you're no good at reading this kinda thing anyway and that you defer to the judgement of a person who did think I was uncivil.  :::Then hour and half later, you (hour and a half ago self-admittedly not that good at ``reading passive-aggressiveness or bad-faith``) feel comfortable making a suggestion to the reviewing admin that it's essentially OK to turn down my unblock request without bothering to read more than one sentence.   :::May I ask how do you imagine me getting a fair hearing by an untainted set of admin eyes now that you (another admin) suggested that several words ``should be enough for any admin to turn down this request``? Context, order of cause and consequence, who initiated this, the validity of initial accusations... I guess none of that plays a role.  `