« first day (1286 days earlier)      last day (3499 days later) » 

12:14 PM
@ChrisW I was only suggesting what you could do to improve your answer, not that it's totally wrong. It seems obvious to me that the OP was looking for something different though, more reputable.
 
 
3 hours later…
2:45 PM
0
Q: What constitutes original research?

SklivvzAnswers which are wholly based on "original research" are generally downvoted and may be deleted. What are the characteristics that (dis-)qualify an answer as original research? How should these issues be corrected?

 
 
2 hours later…
4:27 PM
0
Q: Are answers about efficacy based on logic instead of efficacy testing valid?

DVKFor a question in the form of: Is XYZ effective in achieving goal ABC? Is it valid to post an answer in the form of: NO. This authoritative source lists N mechanisms (M1,... MN) for achieving goal ABC. Since XYZ does not employ one of those N mechanisms, XYZ is not effective ...

 
4:48 PM
0
Q: Are answers relying on biased first-person supplied subjective information valid?

DVKFor a claim in the form of: Is the (potentially negative) fact F about a person P true? Is the following answer considered valid? According to an interview with person P themselves, they have stated that the fact F is false Specific properties of the answer that I'd like to highlight ...

 
 
4 hours later…
8:24 PM
Following the failed black-magic question, I decided I needed to get to the source of my annoyance and posted this: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/238936/…. But.. I'm probably only going to collect downvotes for it anyway. Are you guys not annoyed by some the anthithesis of this sub-site? Somehow.. I feel the format should promote 1) the true-est answer and 2) the answer the questioner had most use for.
Right now... it seems like creationism.SE would survive a beta.
 

« first day (1286 days earlier)      last day (3499 days later) »