This question has been substantially edited since it was put on hold, and it wasn't a duplicate to begin with (current close reason). The question appears to make some faulty assumptions, but we've allowed that before (and answers can correct those errors). Any reason not to reopen this?
For the record, I didn't VTC as duplicate. I think it was either too broad or primarily opinion based.
Also, it wasn't supposed to be closed as a duplicate:
@Shalom This isn't at all a duplicate question. You have a gold badge in halacha so your dupe votes in that tag are binding. Please be careful in the future. I'm leaving this closed for now as a rant, which is what the other close voters voted for. I have low expectations of it being reopened. — Double AA ♦11 hours ago
@Shokhet right. But it was, and pre-edit it was close-worthy for other reasons. While we could reopen in order to reclose for other reasons, I think it's now within the range where, were it newly asked, we wouldn't close it. So I'm asking about reopening.
@DoubleAA Thinks that it still should be closed, FWIW:
@bach I don't care much if you ask for my approval or not. The question has serious problems. Fix it or it'll probably remain closed. — Double AA ♦3 hours ago
(AFAICT that was after the most recent edit)
@MonicaCellio My opinion: not a duplicate, but I don't think should be reopened. Nobody thinks it's a good question, even now (judging from the score of +0/-4), and I feel that it may be on the wrong side of the tznius line for this site. I agree with Double AA that it's probably still a rant, and I'm waiting till tomorrow when (I think) I'll be able to vote to delete the question (because of the tznius issues).
@Shokhet thanks for taking a look and providing your feedback. It appears the OP, a new user, is trying to address our concerns, so I wanted to see if he was there yet. If anybody can offer him constructive guidance on the current version of the question, please do.
@Shokhet that is a nice sentiment but when the first welcome many users get is a feverish rush to find every reason their question is badly formed what do you expect to happen?
@BSteinhurst You make a fair point, but I'm not usually part of that feverish rush. I try to leave polite and useful comments. (If you think my comments need improvement, I'm willing to listen)
The site is trying to improve on that front; I was discussing a meta post about that with Isaac sometime in the last week or two in this room.
@msh210 That's not what the question is asking. I don't think there should be a lower bound on the number of houses for "he has houses available." I want to know if a squatter can use House A for free because he has free access to House B, when his free access to House B is free only because he can use House A for free.
@msh210 Does MHRK print anything other than Judaism? If not, then asking about their output is asking about Judaism. I agree with your comment there that the motivation isn't strong, but it seems facially on-topic to me.
Have you seen (or written) a recent answer on Mi Yodeya that you thought was really great? Let's have a contest to help you tell everyone about it!
This contest has two phases: Nomination and Voting. It is currently in the Nomination phase.
Nomination - ending July 30, 2017
Post an answer to ...
@Shokhet I don't see the difference between what you said and what I said. The g'mara says you can stay in a house because others are available. Your question (about staying in A because B is available and in B because A is) applies even to the g'mara's case of many houses: can he stay in A because B, …, Z are available; in B because A, C, …, Z are; …; in Y because A, …, X, Z are; and in Z because A, …, Y are? The [cont'd]
[cont'd] g'mara answers yes. You're wondering whether the same applies when it's just two houses. No?
@IsaacMoses I have no idea (to answer your question). They may print biography of Jews, for example.
@MonicaCellio In retrospect I think I should have opened and closed again from the outset, as the OP seems particularly bugged by it's being marked "dupe" when it isn't. Having the correct close reason can help users see what to fix.
@msh210 Not exactly. I assume that the case discussed by the gemara is one in which he has illegal access to A, but it's free because he has legal access to B. See Rashi, there, who discusses borrowing and owning:
@msh210 I agree that the question ought to be improved for clarity and that even then, it won't be a particularly compelling question. However, having taken a quick look at MHRK's website (in particular, its topic-headings), combined with my impression of the many times I've come into contact with their books, it seems reasonable to me to consider their stock in trade to be Judaism and to consider a question asking about it to be a question about Judaism.
@IsaacMoses Fair enough. It really should be edited to mention that, though. I'd even cast a non-binding closure vote as off-topic if it doesn't, I think.
Bearing in mind that the site is meant amongst others for “for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition”, can I ask whether criticism of the views of great Rabbis is appropriate to the site?
Two examples (without names of the people commenting):
An answer to this question quoted R...
Have you seen (or written) a recent answer on Mi Yodeya that you thought was really great? Let's have a contest to help you tell everyone about it!
This contest has two phases: Nomination and Voting. It is currently in the Nomination phase.
Nomination - ending July 30, 2017
Post an answer to ...
