@DoubleAA I have limited patience, sometimes.

@TRiG as do I, for trolling.

@DoubleAA My immediate response to that remark was very very angry.

"posting inflammatory and digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a newsgroup, forum, chat room, or blog) with the intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses and normalizing tangential discussion" Wikipedia's definition of internet troll.

@TRiG I don't know what your intent was, obviously, but a Loaded Question is a well known informal logical fallacy that is rarely the mark of a well-intentioned interlocutor.

I wrote an answer here: judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/109735/… that I put a few minutes of research into and it was deleted.

Before answering I considered asking in a comment 'is never say this blessing an on-topic answer' but as I found more sources, it seemed more obviously an answer than a comment. The answr having been deleted, I can't comment there, so I came here to ask about it.

Looks like an answer to me, @Ze'evFelsen. Specifically, it looks like "No". @DoubleAA, who deleted it, can you explain why this isn't an answer?

@msh210 It doesn't appear to answer the question; it just minimizes the contexts in which it is applicable.

A parallel example: are cow brains allowed to be eaten? Non-answer: the FDA doesn't allow them to be sold so you can't eat them.

@DoubleAA to what contexts? The question is pretty (even overly) specific as to its context. This limits it further? I don't see that. To what contexts do you think it limits it?

Our example: can mechaye metim be said at a wedding or is the negative connotation of death inappropriate? Non-answer: it's practically nearly impossible nowadays to be obligated in that blessing.

@DoubleAA No, that limits the case to the States. This answer does no such thing.

@msh210 only to people who have internet access and friends with access etc. Not geographic, I agree.

@DoubleAA The answer was never to say it. Not just almost never, dependent on circumstances

It does limit the case to nowadays. But arguably the question was already doing so. And even if not, it's a reasonable partial answer

@msh210 it is clearly limited to "in the modern era" (seemingly culturally, not temporally). If an old friend of Gilad Shalit didn't know he'd been released because of arbitrary medical concerns and showed up at his wedding by accident, we'd be in business.

@msh210 The way the question is framed sets it clearly in a contemporary context and implies specifically that modern communication networks are in play

Does anyone here think it's actually addressing the underlying question, or are we just debating whether the OP posed his question technically narrow enough to let this in on a loophole?

@DoubleAA I think this answer successfully undermines a key presupposition of the question

@IsaacMoses which is?

@DoubleAA That one would say the beracha, absent wedding considerations

@DoubleAA I think the question is asked very poorly if what you refer to as its underlying question was actually meant. It sounds almost like a rfפ (and I've edited accordingly)

@IsaacMoses That's not a key presupposition. The question is totally valid without it. The OP included it to make a better story.

There is contexts where the blessing exists. No need to describe them. Do they intersect with weddings?

How are you at a wedding without knowing if the groom is alive or not before you show up?

@Ze'evFelsen wedding at a shul. Came for Mincha Maariv.

I think you are limiting the case more than I am but, ok

@DoubleAA According to this answer, the circumstances in which the beracha exist contemporarily would appear to be the exception, rather than the rule. There's nothing in the question that puts it into such exceptional territory, and in fact, there are aspects of the question that make it clear that it's not.

@DoubleAA (centuries ago)

@IsaacMoses on the contrary, the OP seems quite intent on excluding any objection to saying the blessing on the grounds of there was content, trying to focus on the wedding aspect exclusively.

@DoubleAA OK, but according to the answer, that intent is misguided. Hence, it's a worthwhile answer

@IsaacMoses not misguided! Just not perfectly executed.

We can go on debating this but, meanwhile, it's clearly debated and thus debatable enough that it's reasonable to undelete and let the community delete if it wants to. No, @DoubleAA?

How can anyone ask questions about this blessing, which is Torah, without getting bogged down in how common it is nowadays and how to construct the right scenario?

"in a time when this blessing applied..."

@DoubleAA I don't see why answers that deal with the wedding aspect wouldn't be valid here.

I've gtg. I'll await with bated breath the outcome of this exciting conversation.

Tempted to post a question of "Should I say blessing mechayeh hametim", answer with sources, and then link

Too trollish?

@Ze'evFelsen excellent idea, just be sure to write the question from the perspective of someone who doesn't know the answer

@Ze'evFelsen Or even "according to those who would say to say this blessing otherwise"

Frankly we may even have that question already somewhere

@DoubleAA I disagree with your edit to preclude the currently-deleted (but previously-upvoted) answer. I think the answer is relevant to the intent expressed in the original question, and that changing the question preclude this answer subtracts value.

@IsaacMoses ask the OP if he wants to reject the edits. (If the issue is the upvote on the answer and being invalidated I'll undelete downvote and then edit the question and then delete.)

(I thought to downvote originally for missing the point in addition to deleting as not an answer, but decided to be nice since it was probably well intentioned. You can see in the post history I deleted and undeleted and deleted as I debated that)

This is obviously technical speak. Asking the OP is the best way to determine what he sought.

I commented there. We could consider putting on hold in the meantime if there's real doubt.

@msh210 false alarm

@DoubleAA fine, so do that and undelete

@msh210 Your respiration continues uninterrupted, I hope?

@IsaacMoses I did breathe but now it's rebated

oh and now I've gtg again

@DoubleAA Given that the point of the edit was to preclude the existing deleted answer (or, more technically, to preclude all answers along the lines described in that answer), and you're asking the author of the question to validate or invalidate the edit, I think it would make sense to leave the answer visible as part of the consideration. (This argument is mitigated by the fact that the asker in this case has sufficient rep to be able to read the answer anyway.)

@IsaacMoses I'd say the point is to help the OP get the answers to his intended question, and I guess we'll see if my assessment of that is correct.

@DoubleAA Do you deny that he's lying, or deny that he's a homophobe, or deny that there's a pattern of homophobes telling outrageous lies?

Oh never mind. Ignore the question. You're perhaps right that I'm not in the right frame of mind right now to make this conversation fruitful.