3

Example: Reopening: EU Law in England, quote from Prof. Hutchinson, and from Lord Neuberger?

1
  • Can you clarify how the answers there and there do not address this question? – feetwet Oct 22 '16 at 22:21
1

You seem to be asking whether a large number of your questions are on-topic. For the purposes of this answer, I'm going to traverse the process that you would have undertaken to reach the present circumstances.

  1. You have made contributions to Law Stack Exchange that have not been deleted. Further, you have had numerous questions that have been closed as off-topic. The vast majority of them have been deleted now, either by yourself or by automated processes.

  2. You have asked, here on meta, whether those questions are on-topic, on numerous occasions.1 I don't intend to traverse the content of each of them, but you have variously claimed that:

    • Just because they are opinion-based, doesn't mean that it is impossible to give objective answers
    • Just because they are opinion-based, doesn't mean that they have no value as general questions of law
    • That the law is inherently subjective, and that the opinion-based closure reason therefore doesn't apply
    • That, because the content of the questions originated from established legal figures, they are on-topic

    For each of these cases, we declined to re-open the questions and provided reasons as to why this was the case; you did not engage us (in this case, I mean anyone who engaged you by providing a comment or answer) further on our reasoning except to the extent that you asked for supporting facts to support one or two of our answers, and attempted to elicit an answer to one of your closed questions in one of the comments. Where you don't respond, we're not going to provide additional detail, because we believe you are satisfied with it. Equity favours the vigilant.

    However, having said all this, you clearly have a history of asking for questions to be reopened, sometimes with little or no reasons why except to refuse the validity of the closure reason.

  3. Now, yet again, you are asking here on Meta whether your questions are on-topic, despite them being closed, and despite us having given you answers to your previous questions. Rather than comment on those, asking for clarification, as is their purpose, you've decided to ask yet another question, and again, you offer no reason as to why we should reconsider a fresh question on whether your questions are on-topic.

This question is literally a duplicate of the question you have linked to. I should not have had to compose a response to this question, because it should not have been asked.

Based on the above facts (which you are welcome to dispute, though based on your past interactions with us, I doubt you will), it is clear to me that you know what is on-topic, and you know what is off-topic, or that at the very least, you know which of your questions are on-topic and which are not. What I don't know is why you, someone who apparently seeks to educate themselves in law, believe it apropos to ask this question, without new reasons for doing so, and without addressing the reasons provided to any of your previous questions.

If you find that the previous responses are lacking - please comment on them, so that the relevant author may provide additional detail. If you have a new question to ask, please do so. However, this question present nothing new, nor did the question you linked to.


1. This isn't intended to be a complete list:
Reopening: EU Law in England, quote from Prof. Hutchinson, and from Lord Neuberger?
Why were these 4 questions based on 2 jurisprudents closed?
How to improve these questions deemed 'primarily opinion-based' or 'unclear'?

1
  • tl;dr: See res judicata ;) – feetwet Oct 23 '16 at 23:22

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .