2

This question is not only closed, but locked, so we can't even comment on it.

The only reasons this question was closed was that it named a specific person. That does detract from the question, but it didn't invalidate it, and the name has now been edited out. So really the question should be reopened, but we can't because it's locked. Could someone do something about that, please?

| |
  • I re-titled this to be generally about locked threads. There are two meta posts open just about this one question already, if you really JUST want to ask about that question it's probably a duplicate of the other threads. How to handle locked posts in general seems like a more helpful thing to leave here. – Caleb Sep 9 '11 at 14:30
  • It wasn't my intention to ask about the general handling of locked questions, and the other meta questions didn't address my immediate issue. However your answer had addressed most of my concerns. – DJClayworth Sep 9 '11 at 15:07
  • I don't know why the question was closed. It was closed by 5 persons, Bruce Alderman, Richard, warren, ashansky and Narnian. None of them left a comment why. DTest edited the name away after it was closed, and made several remarks, that he didn't want to close it, in comments and meta threads. The other person who quickly responded to my question, why it was closed, is Shog9, who misinterpreted the history of the closing process, and only talks about the name. In the thread about naming the person, Richard agrees that closing a question for the reason to use a name is alright ... – user unknown Sep 9 '11 at 19:34
  • ... but Richard doesn't say, that he actually did vote to close for that reason. Maybe he is using this kind of indirectly speaking more often - to me it doesn't sound, as if this was his reason to vote to close. – user unknown Sep 9 '11 at 19:35
  • Caleb is very engaged in the question too, but he too has the history wrong. – user unknown Sep 9 '11 at 19:36
  • 1
    The reason I voted to close the question is because, as I mentioned here, the question appears to be attacking an individual. – Richard Sep 9 '11 at 21:00
4

The question was locked by a moderator because the OP was making an edit war out of it by putting the name back every time the community removed it. There was a thread here about that. The OP did open another meta thread about the reason for the close, but hasn't seemed willing yet to let the community make it what they think is a decent question. Until those issues reach some resolution, unlocking the thread is only asking for trouble. We need to work out our issues about what is and is not appropriate in questions here on meta rather than hashing it out on comments.

When a thread is locked, this is the right place to come if you want to inquire about or request a change!

I suggest that if the OP continues to be disinclined to make it a general question, you could go ahead and ask a generalized version of the question.

| |
  • That makes more sense. I think a comment explaining the reason for closure would help people coming to the question without knowing that history. – DJClayworth Sep 9 '11 at 14:25
  • @DJClayworth: I agree that it would be nice if an OP added a link to the second meta thread about the post. When in doubt about what happened with a question it's good to check the revision history. You can see any series of opens/closes/locks/unlocks and the edit war is pretty obvious there in this case. – Caleb Sep 9 '11 at 14:29
  • When I do check the revision history, I find the question was closed BEFORE the edit war took place. While the edit war may have been the reason for the lock, the closure was absolutely unnecessary if the edit war hadn't happened. It's possible that the closure provoked the edit war. I know I'd be annoyed if ...oops, I mean 'was annoyed when'... my questions were closed. – DJClayworth Sep 9 '11 at 15:12
  • 1
    @DJClayworth: Most of the close votes came in before it was edited (presumably to save it from getting closed). The whole point of closing things is to indicate that they shouldn't be answered in their current form. When they do get edited to an agreeable form, they can be re-opened. Closure != deletion. The reason this didn't get re-opened is that the OP started the edit war. I for one would have cast a reopen vote for the edited version but the war was already on. Now he has to convince a moderator that he understands what the problem is and is going to play ball. Or somebody else can ask :) – Caleb Sep 9 '11 at 16:24
  • I hereby protest the claim, that it was me, who made or started the edit war. In my opinion it is very unpolite to change a question against the intend of the autor, without asking for permission, without any remark why you did. It is absurd to claim, that it was just me who made an edit war - against myself perhaps? The history was, that the question was closed without comment, then the name was removed, without comment, and since I found no explanation, why it was removed, I put the name back in. ... – user unknown Sep 9 '11 at 19:09
  • After I rolled the question back, DTest, who made the edit, posted an comment, which I only saw after making a comment about the closing of the question. Since DTest isn't a moderator, I saw no reason to accept his edit. But here I am accused that I started a war. I protest! – user unknown Sep 9 '11 at 19:16
-1

In the chat I had opportunity to clarify my question. This is what I came up with - if it is acceptable, I would be happy if it could be the replacement for the old question:


In the news I saw an American politician praying for growing stock market prices.

Isn't this considered blasphemy, according to Christian beliefs, like praying to the golden calf?

I'm not interested in pointing on somebody - I'm interested in the question on how Christians view instrumentation of religion for doing a political campaign, involving praying for the Wall Street, as if the Wallstreet is a value on its own.

Therefore I made the connection to the Golden Calf. The calf is a competing idol, and the Israelites spent their private gold to make it.

Maybe from the other side: If someone performs prayers for bread, he is asking for a core, valuable thing: Human life. But asking for climbing stock markets is like asking for a main winning in the lottery.

It is not a decent, humble question, but challenging. Asking for health can be seen as selfish too - but health is a core need - isn't it?

So for me it looks very absent minded, to ask for the SE-market to grow. And like an inversion of values - the real God is already the SE-market. God is only a tool, to make it grow. And that might be a reason to call it blasphemy, from a Christian viewpoint.

People don't come together to celebrate their community, or to praise the lord, but to praise the Stock market. And the whole campaign is in itself only a vehicle, to make a politician popular, a marketing instrument.

| |
  • 1
    I would say this is acceptable. This version is very close to what the question read after it was edited, which edits you reverted. – DJClayworth Sep 10 '11 at 23:25
  • Are you joking? I had to try to put all the context, who was in the name and in the event, into the question. Look alone how long it is! The only modification the edit made was to remove the name, so I don't understand what you like to say - I just feel needless provocated. – user unknown Sep 10 '11 at 23:47

You must log in to answer this question.

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