« first day (2931 days earlier)      last day (1549 days later) » 

Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
12:33 AM
@rschwieb The context and my motivation is explained in my prior replies.
 
 
2 hours later…
rschwieb
rschwieb
2:53 AM
@BillDubuque Context and motivation indeed, both of which are reasonable answers to the question "why" you take your stance. Let's just say I accept those things at face value. The question I'm asking still remains: what sort of help were you looking for from CRUDE readers? How are they supposed to help?
 
 
3 hours later…
SmokeDetector
SmokeDetector
6:10 AM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Bad keyword in answer, pattern-matching website in answer, potentially bad ns for domain in answer, potentially bad keyword in answer (167): Canola Oil problem by vickieorter on math.SE
 
 
1 hour later…
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
7:13 AM
@rschwieb Please read more carefully. This was already explained. Please avoid insulting remarks like "taking things at face value"
 
 
8 hours later…
rschwieb
rschwieb
2:58 PM
The meaning of the phrase was "I accepted those as you presented them, without contention." Honestly I've never heard "take at face-value" used in anything but a neutral way, and in never occurred to me that someone might be insulted by it.

Anyhow, since I've only gotten the ol' runaround seeking plain answers above, I'll have to do my best with this:

"If the downvote has anything to do with mathematics then I'd be very grateful to know more so that I can improve it if need be."
 
rschwieb
rschwieb
3:17 PM
I suppose that fits in with the "E" of this room, but it does not seem like an efficient use of resources of this room. But I gather that the other intangibles you were looking for have already been accrued (attention for your solution and a chance to defend the style you are using in the post) so all is well.

FWIW I don't see anything "mathematically" wrong. If you truly think the downvotes need addressing then the natural course would be to reconsider the reason given in the comments instead of dismissing it. Otherwise... another day in the life of m.se?
 
user21820
user21820
3:55 PM
D1, D2, D3.
D4, D5, D6.
D7, D8, D9.
C1, C2, C3.
C4, C5, C6.
 
 
2 hours later…
SmokeDetector
SmokeDetector
5:30 PM
[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at end of answer, username similar to website in answer (120): Maximum number of teams of three people such that each team is built in one of two ways by angels ofkarachi on math.SE
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
@rschwieb "But I gather that the other intangibles you were looking (attention for your solution and a chance to defend the style you are using in the post)". I have no idea why you believe such strange things since I never said anything of that sort. In any case, thanks for your feedback on the mathematics being correct (which, of course, I knew, after wasting valuable time to double and triple check it before it was revealed that the downvote(s) were based on style preferences).
I suppose - analogously - these users would also downvote answers that used commutative diagrams instead of very verbose English language. That's sad (and quite nonconstructive). But - of course - abuse of downvotes is old news.
 
 
3 hours later…
rschwieb
rschwieb
8:09 PM
@BillDubuque Considering this is not the first time the same complaint has been leveled at this style of your posts, it seems there is probably some merit to it. I mean, clearly you are more interested in downplaying and invalidating it, but maybe the path of least resistance to happier readers and better post quality would be a compromise. Of course, nobody could handle that compromise with your style but you yourself, but I know you work hard on your posts and could probably pull it off.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
9:07 PM
@rschwieb People concoct all sorts of nonsensical arguments to justify downvotes - often hiding the true reason. I don't lose any sleep over such nonsense.
 
rschwieb
rschwieb
9:30 PM
@BillDubuque Well, if dealing with criticism is so problematic as to interfere with your sleep, I guess I won't press the point. If indiscriminate invalidation is the answer to a good night's sleep, I guess I can't argue.
 
Bill Dubuque
Bill Dubuque
9:57 PM
@rschwieb It seems you missed the "don't" in "I don't lose sleep...". Since you seem intent on twisting my words (as usual) I won't be replying any further.
 

« first day (2931 days earlier)      last day (1549 days later) »