Yes Like:

Spending 10 times more than needed to detect asteroids.

Mining He3 for fusion reactors that don't exist and are even more challenging than the type we've now been trying to develop for 70 years.

Mining ice for rocket fuel to send rockets to Mars when going directly would be easier and less costly. Or do you want to use it to send people to Jupiter where the radiation is far worse than that at Mars you keep harping on despite a few sandbags being all that's needed to deal with it?

The only good reasons are to study the Moon itself and radio astronomy on the far side of the Moon, but neither of those interest the public like the potential for life past or present.

Did I miss any?

It's frowned on because the Mars Society was founded on the belief Mars is the best place for humanity to establish a foothold in space and to answer the question of whether life exists elsewhere. If you believe these are important goals then it is reasonable to be wary of getting bogged down pursuing less important goals that have already lead once before to the dismantling of the infrastructure needed to get to Mars.

If you don't want to be attacked, don't berate people with unsupported accusations and bad science. Very few people will respond to multiple unjustified attacks without attacking back. Your history of animosity with Mars advocates has far more to do with that than your interest in the Moon. The Artemis Society and Mars Society have collaberated on multiple occasions.

This particular Mars advocate has spoken against banning you on numerous occasions despite your record of disagreeable behavior because you occasionally spark debates of substance or a search for deaper understanding even when you are dead wrong.

Regards,
Mark