One of the main reasons given for it not being a good idea to give-in to temptatation and respond to an obvious provocation in a thread - in order to have the final 'witty' reply - is that by doing so - the thread is refreshed and pops back to the top again.

God only knows how many times some folk post in this fashion - and as a result - refresh the offending thread - often only to point out to other posters - that their doing so will only result in the thread being refreshed and encourage other posters - not to do it!

If the thread is not refreshed - it effectively dies and there is no need for any volunteer to close it - as judgement has been passed upon the thread in the best possible way. Perhaps our volunteers can always set and follow this example to other posters?

The choice or judgement to post the final 'witty' or otherwise comment - but without refeshing the offending thread (by making the pretence that this were an editorial comment) - is not one that is open to us all.

It also serves to avoid refreshing threads that are contentious, even though contentious people might like to force me to refresh them.
-Joe Offer-

The question is why would a volunteer not wish to refresh this thread? Or why could it sinply not be ignored - if they didn't wish to refresh it?

For I am not sure at all what is considered as 'contentious' in this thread - and judged as not fit to be refreshed by a reply posted to a question the conventional way. The poster asking the question had no way of knowing that their question had been answered - because of the method chosen. As this thread would have fallen off the bottom and died.

No 'contentious people' are forcing or can force anyone to refresh this thread or force them to do to do anything else. But if the thread was judged as not worth being refreshed - why post to answer the question at all? And in a fashion not open to eveyone else and one that that means the poster of the question is not going to be aware their question has received a reply?