you still kept "modern" in the title 

I just have done, following Cristi's helpful suggestion, before I read your post. 

Paul, you could change the title of the thread to

Well, that’s what you get when you throw about that description. If you wanted to discuss post-‘70s bands, then the easiest way to avoid arguments is to keep it simple, and call them post-‘70s bands. Otherwise it just looks like you were baiting (and Cristi and I bit), and let’s face it - you are in a bit of a boy who cried Wolf situation here. You have some renown for being controversial simply for the sake of it, and calling anything post-‘70s modern you must have either been incredibly naive, or expecting argument.

I thought the description "Modern Prog Bands" would be less controversial than "Neo Prog Bands", but maybe I was wrong. 

At the moment, it looks like we're going to have an endless debate about what constitutes modern prog, instead of anyone actually voting in the poll. 

I think, especially given how much focus the bands of that era get both on PA and outside it, that a thread about bands that are only post-‘70s is a good one. Just, don’t call them modern, when to most people (although obviously not Paul) modern means something more recent than something from four decades ago….