Timeline for Should the 'scripture against the Trinity' question be left closed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2017 at 12:56 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://christianity.stackexchange.com/ with https://christianity.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Jan 21, 2014 at 2:49 | comment | added | user3961 | @DJ Yes, a bit silly, but I obliged you anyway. Reversed my downvote and upvoted. | |
| Jan 18, 2014 at 17:46 | comment | added | DJClayworth | I was unaware of this convention. Anyway, I have now reversed the sense of the question, which shouldn't impact any of the answers, but means that everyone can now upvote it. All of which is slightly silly. | |
| Jan 18, 2014 at 17:45 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 7 characters in body; edited title
|
| Jan 16, 2014 at 20:51 | comment | added | user3961 | @DJClayworth I know, but your title asks if it should be reopened and the convention here on meta is to downvote when you disagree. I upvoted your answer because I do agree with that. | |
| Jan 16, 2014 at 19:44 | answer | added | user3961 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 19:41 | comment | added | DJClayworth | @fredsbend " I asked this question because I wanted to make sure there was a place for The Duke of Marshall to get a comprehensive explanation for why his question shouldn't be reopened, and to understand the will of the community - not because I thought it should be reopened. | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 19:37 | comment | added | wax eagle Mod | @TheDukeOfMarshall your revision is in the edit history. | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 14:27 | answer | added | curiousdanniiMod | timeline score: 3 | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 14:21 | answer | added | DJClayworth | timeline score: 0 | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 14:18 | comment | added | The Duke Of Marshall שלום | @curiousdannii I wrote out the explanation as to why it's not a duplicate in my original post, but that was conveniently edited to remove that part. Someone attempted to post something similar in this original meta post, but I can't be certain as to the accuracy without access to my original question. However, check out the "quote" in this first meta post. | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 14:12 | history | edited | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1201 characters in body
|
| Jan 15, 2014 at 14:08 | comment | added | curiousdannii Mod | Why don't you think it's a duplicate? | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 14:07 | comment | added | The Duke Of Marshall שלום | @fredsbend You are incorrect that this is an exact duplicate. It should be apparent why, but I explained the differences further in my original question. However, a moderator thought that it would be good to unethically edit my question. And yes, I also provided an answer, but that was only WAY after many other answers had been provided, discussion had gone on for some time, and I felt as though I could add something that had not already been mentioned. Your condescension in your comment is unappreciated and unwelcome. | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 14:03 | answer | added | The Duke Of Marshall שלום | timeline score: -3 | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 12:09 | answer | added | David Stratton | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 6:25 | history | edited | user3961 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed link; matched title and question in body
|
| Jan 15, 2014 at 6:24 | comment | added | user3961 | By the way, they are exact duplicates, by any measure. So a downvote because the newer, duplicate question should not be reopened. If the mods think it is worth it, they can migrate the answers on the new one to the old one. | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 6:23 | comment | added | user3961 | Seeing as how the asker is also the answerer; I'm going to go out on a limb and say that The Duke is disappointed that his attempt at a self answer failed. However, he could post his answer in the older question. | |
| Jan 15, 2014 at 4:21 | history | asked | DJClayworth | CC BY-SA 3.0 |