@rschwieb You are indeed correct. I do not know who the people in this room are. I don't even know how many they are. But I know the names of those who closed my question for no good reason, the ones who voted to close it again when re-opened. My animosity is directed at a few names, not at the whole CRUDE crew. I know their names and I no longer upvote their answers.

For closure: c1, c2, c3, c4, c5

WHy would you close-delete this? math.stackexchange.com/questions/3190101 Especially given the skill and succinctness of Deepak's answer. At worst a duplicate should be found.

@Saad ^^

@RodrigodeAzevedo Good, then you'll notice that three people from this room helped re-open it. Hooray for busybodies, eh? It seems to me that an understandable mistake was quickly rectified... I can't say I feel your planned punitive measures reflect on you particularly well, but they're your votes after all so ¯_(ツ)_/¯

@user334732 This topic has been discussed for many times in CRUDE and meta. My opinion is that answers should not be given to PSQs in the first place.

@rschwieb you lost your arm \\

@Saad It's site policy to be nice, and to be welcoming to new users. Clearly that current approach to welcoming new users is inadequate. You will be familiary with the quote Einstein: "insanity is doing something over and over again and expecting a different result".

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer (86): Alpha max plus beta min algorithm for three numbers ✏️ by Jan Heldal on math.SE

There is Show $e^x$ is irrational for rational $x \neq 0$. But I guess somebody might be able to find a better duplicate target.

This seems related: For which $x$ is $e^x$ rational? Transcendental?

@user334732 It's also site policy, even with repeated warnings before a new user clicks the button to post a new question, to give contexts. I don't want to engage in this unproductive conversation, bye!

@Saad my suggestion was made already notwithstanding the fact you're pointing out. IMO It would be productive for new users if you changed your behaviour slightly to be more friendly to new users, but you're fully entitled not to do so. Bye

@Magisch :) Tossing a pizza crust maybe?

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Few unique characters in body, title has only one unique char (188): ....................... ✏️ by JustWandering on math.SE

cv-pls fractals Too Broad The methods to create fractal objects mathematically‭ - supremum‭ 2019-04-17 13:02:41Z

Vague claim about uncited articles.

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

C1, C2, C3.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

D13, D14, D15.

@rschwieb I don't see the point of dwelling on this, but the closing and re-opening history reflects very poorly on said busybodies. The only plausible explanation for their erratic behavior is that they don't like such math because they see no depth in it.

@rschwieb However, I don't see why their taste should decide what math is. After all, tastes highly depend on fads, and one should not throw unfashionable mathematics into the dustbin. Libraries do not dispose of books that are no longer borrowed, do they?

@RodrigodeAzevedo It seems you have really not been willing to listen to any point I've made at all with regards to your comments, which we've been over already once. I've decided not to continue to debate it, for this reason. Good day