Timeline for Explain the reasoning behind voting to place this question "on hold"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 8, 2018 at 17:56 | comment | added | agc | (continued) Here the answer "2-12" is better than nothing, but incomplete. A better answer would note that the most likely numbers are 7,6,8, and so on down, with the odds of 2 and 12 more remote, and a still better answer would draw curve and give the curve's formula. | |
| Jul 8, 2018 at 17:19 | comment | added | agc | Re "bloviate": this seems incorrect -- sometimes the only answer is intrinsically abstract, non-specific, or ballpark, and for such answers error lies in over-specificity. Example: "What numbers can come up when rolling a die?" Right answer: 1-6. Wrong answers: 1) Impossible to say, nobody knows what number. 2) Anything. 3) Too broad, vote to close. 4) Don't understand the question, vote to close. etc... Next example: "What numbers can come up when rolling a pair of dice?" (cont....) | |
| May 30, 2018 at 2:55 | vote | accept | guest271314 | ||
| May 30, 2018 at 2:05 | comment | added | guest271314 | "There is no theory (in any discipline) of the number of black racial groups in Africa, so precision or even reasonable approximation is impossible. Directive 15 is not based on science, so you'd just get bloviative answers ranging from 1 to 1000 (maybe more)." is a viable, acceptable answer to the referenced question, even without going further into the history of or current language of the regulation. That is, the administrative regulation is prima facie arbitrary and capricious. Will post your response above as answer if you do not or do not object. | |
| May 30, 2018 at 1:55 | comment | added | guest271314 | Moreover, your statement "There is no theory (in any discipline) of the number of black racial groups in Africa, so precision or even reasonable approximation is impossible. Directive 15 is not based on science, so you'd just get bloviative answers ranging from 1 to 1000 (maybe more)." is indeed a legally factual answer, not opinion. Thus your reasoning for voting to close: "primarily opinion based" is overcome by your own reasoning here that "approximation is impossible": a factual response to the factual question which analyzes the construction of the referenced administrative regulation. | |
| May 30, 2018 at 1:07 | comment | added | guest271314 | "The problem is that the SE machine does not report all of the reasons, it gives the main or first reason" it would seem that that should be fixed, to avoid confusion. "There is no theory (in any discipline) of the number of black racial groups in Africa" The point of question was to demonstrate that the administrative regulation is arbitrary, capricious, unconstitutional; without making that claim at the OP. From a legal perspective here the fiction "black racial groups of Africa" "is impossible", doe not exist outside of Directive 15 or anywhere the language is used; is a complete fraud. | |
| May 29, 2018 at 16:58 | history | answered | user6726 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |