Timeline for I thought I had adequately explained why my question was not a duplicate
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22, 2018 at 2:48 | history | edited | Charlie Brumbaugh |
edited tags
|
|
| Jul 14, 2017 at 17:13 | comment | added | paparazzo | You really think months versus years would be different methods? | |
| Apr 28, 2017 at 20:09 | comment | added | Sue Saddest Farewell TGO GL | @OlinLathrop Those comments, especially the first, are very harsh. Both the content, and the fact that they didn't answer what OP was asking, violate SE's Be Nice policy. I'm posting this for future viewers to see that this type of behavior is not condoned by SE. ab2 correctly followed SE policy when editing the question on the main site, and by bringing the matter here for clarification. | |
| Apr 23, 2017 at 16:47 | comment | added | ab2 | @Olin Lathrop I did not ask for your opinion on why I revised my question. It certainly was not because I was in "a contest to see what [I could] get away with", but you are right: I don't like that opinion. | |
| Apr 23, 2017 at 13:42 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | There is nothing to reconsider. You asked, and I gave my opinion. I didn't vote on your questions either way. In fact, I hadn't looked at them until I saw this meta question, and by that time your second question had already been re-opened. However, I do take a dim view of someone not posting a good question originally. It's not much of a problem on this site, but is significant on other SE sites, like Electrical Engineering. You may not like my opinion, but you did ask for it. | |
| Apr 23, 2017 at 13:31 | comment | added | ab2 | @Olin Lathrop "....A contest to see what you can get away with?" "Noising up the site...."? Please reconsider those remarks. I'd better stop now before I say something I will regret | |
| Apr 23, 2017 at 12:42 | comment | added | Olin Lathrop | While it is technically possible for questions to be re-opened after being closed, it is difficult in practice. Personally, I almost never vote to re-open. I feel you should get your question right the first time, or be sent home without a cookie. Consider it punishment for noising up the site with the original question, if that helps. We don't want people going back and forth experimenting where the limits are. This isn't a contest to see what you can get away with. In this case, I didn't look at the original questions and cast no votes. I'm only explaining my general philosophy. | |
| Apr 21, 2017 at 18:33 | comment | added | ab2 | @James Jenkins Thanks for replying. I will edit further to make the question shorter. However, my point is that the original question said nothing, zilch, nada, about storage in stuff stack vs storing loose, nor did any of its answers. I will clarify why I added a half sentence about UV. | |
| Apr 21, 2017 at 18:20 | comment | added | James Jenkins | I didn't vote on close or re-open, But your questions seems to use a lot of words to ask if being used at high elevations means you should store it differently the recommended in original. All the extra words don't add value for me, so I didn't vote. | |
| Apr 21, 2017 at 17:52 | history | asked | ab2 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |