Skip to main content

Return to Answer

Commonmark migration
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

I suspect the comment you're referring to there was George throwing out an intentionally ridiculous scenario to illustrate the ridiculousness of the problem itself.

To recap that discussion: a short (NOT link-only) answer has proved useful, and also motivated the creation of a longer answer which may eliminate the need for the original. George is saying this isn't a decision for moderators to make, although it is technically feasible for the community to do so if sufficiently motivated - then noting the sort of effort that would be required to eliminate this minor irritant.

Considered in this light, the idea is patently ridiculous: the answer is useful, outside of extreme situations it is not in the way, it is clearly not worth 20 people's time to remove it.

###Required reading:

Required reading:

I suspect the comment you're referring to there was George throwing out an intentionally ridiculous scenario to illustrate the ridiculousness of the problem itself.

To recap that discussion: a short (NOT link-only) answer has proved useful, and also motivated the creation of a longer answer which may eliminate the need for the original. George is saying this isn't a decision for moderators to make, although it is technically feasible for the community to do so if sufficiently motivated - then noting the sort of effort that would be required to eliminate this minor irritant.

Considered in this light, the idea is patently ridiculous: the answer is useful, outside of extreme situations it is not in the way, it is clearly not worth 20 people's time to remove it.

###Required reading:

I suspect the comment you're referring to there was George throwing out an intentionally ridiculous scenario to illustrate the ridiculousness of the problem itself.

To recap that discussion: a short (NOT link-only) answer has proved useful, and also motivated the creation of a longer answer which may eliminate the need for the original. George is saying this isn't a decision for moderators to make, although it is technically feasible for the community to do so if sufficiently motivated - then noting the sort of effort that would be required to eliminate this minor irritant.

Considered in this light, the idea is patently ridiculous: the answer is useful, outside of extreme situations it is not in the way, it is clearly not worth 20 people's time to remove it.

Required reading:

replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
Source Link
Community Bot
Community Bot
  • 1

I suspect the comment you're referring to there was George throwing out an intentionally ridiculous scenario to illustrate the ridiculousness of the problem itself.

To recap that discussion: a short (NOT link-onlyNOT link-only) answer has proved useful, and also motivated the creation of a longer answer which may eliminate the need for the original. George is saying this isn't a decision for moderators to make, although it is technically feasible for the community to do so if sufficiently motivated - then noting the sort of effort that would be required to eliminate this minor irritant.

Considered in this light, the idea is patently ridiculous: the answer is useful, outside of extreme situations it is not in the way, it is clearly not worth 20 people's time to remove it.

###Required reading:

I suspect the comment you're referring to there was George throwing out an intentionally ridiculous scenario to illustrate the ridiculousness of the problem itself.

To recap that discussion: a short (NOT link-only) answer has proved useful, and also motivated the creation of a longer answer which may eliminate the need for the original. George is saying this isn't a decision for moderators to make, although it is technically feasible for the community to do so if sufficiently motivated - then noting the sort of effort that would be required to eliminate this minor irritant.

Considered in this light, the idea is patently ridiculous: the answer is useful, outside of extreme situations it is not in the way, it is clearly not worth 20 people's time to remove it.

###Required reading:

I suspect the comment you're referring to there was George throwing out an intentionally ridiculous scenario to illustrate the ridiculousness of the problem itself.

To recap that discussion: a short (NOT link-only) answer has proved useful, and also motivated the creation of a longer answer which may eliminate the need for the original. George is saying this isn't a decision for moderators to make, although it is technically feasible for the community to do so if sufficiently motivated - then noting the sort of effort that would be required to eliminate this minor irritant.

Considered in this light, the idea is patently ridiculous: the answer is useful, outside of extreme situations it is not in the way, it is clearly not worth 20 people's time to remove it.

###Required reading:

Source Link
Shog9
Shog9
  • 158.8k
  • 176
  • 1.2k
  • 1.2k

I suspect the comment you're referring to there was George throwing out an intentionally ridiculous scenario to illustrate the ridiculousness of the problem itself.

To recap that discussion: a short (NOT link-only) answer has proved useful, and also motivated the creation of a longer answer which may eliminate the need for the original. George is saying this isn't a decision for moderators to make, although it is technically feasible for the community to do so if sufficiently motivated - then noting the sort of effort that would be required to eliminate this minor irritant.

Considered in this light, the idea is patently ridiculous: the answer is useful, outside of extreme situations it is not in the way, it is clearly not worth 20 people's time to remove it.

###Required reading: