I really took most of those inquiries as actual questions by people curious about the finer points of law. I know I learned a bit from the answers they got, anyway. They were obviously not directly germaine to the subject of the thread, but I didn’t see most of them as trying to argue against the point.
Anyway, here I am, arguing against your point, sorry, I just thought it may be useful to see it from a different perspective. YMMV.
Is this where I say, yes, it really is? No, that would be silly.
Sure but you would be wrong. Did you not read the answers where it was said that the judge understands he is not wiping their mind? I can’t help but think that those that are having an issue with the concept can only think of the TV version where it’s always some dramatic stunt by the lawyer. If there is a chance that the disallowed testimony is going to sway the jury like you seem to think it will a mistrial will happen. Also often the judge doesn’t just say “disregard” and pretend that’s enough. He will take the time to tell the jury what is happening and why.
To put it in the terms you used, if it’s an elephant there would be a mistrial. If it’s a mouse the trial continues.