AKA, "Disclaimer: This doesn't actually answer the question and I know it but I'm going to post it anyway."

@DavidRicherby Are you saying this seriously, or is there a tongue in cheek aspect to your comment?

@BaileyS I'm saying it seriously. This isn't an answer to the question at the top of the page, the author knows it and they shouldn't have posted it.

@DavidRicherby Doesn't the answer about the Gossamer Albatross fit into a similar category since it is also an ultralight (and without engine)?

@BaileyS I'm not sure if human-powered counts as "powered" so I'm staying out of that one. Also, note that Michael argues that his answer about the Albatros does fit the question (as does flawr with their answer about the Electro), whereas tuskiomi argues that their answer doesn't fit.

@davidricherby does the fact that i admit the faults of my argument make it any less relevant or related to the question? I think that even excusing the disclaimer, the answer is still relevant. As a matter of fact, good answers are willing to admit their faults, for constructive criticism.

@tuskiomi The fault you're admitting to is that the answer is not relevant or related to the question! So, yes, that does mean that the answer is not relevant or related to the question.

@davidricherby did i say somewhere that its not? Sounds like you are assuming things

@tuskiomi I'm not assuming anything. The question is about fixed-wing aircraft: this is explicitly stated in the question. Your answer is not about fixed-wing aircraft: this is explicitly stated in your answer.

@DavidRicherby there's nothing in the question about fixed wingedness.

@tuskiomi It's in the tags and was in the original text of the question (though, if I'm reading the edit history correctly, it had been removed from the text at the point when you posted your answer). And the question says "airplane", which this isn't.

@DavidRicherby: It's an aircraft that can't simply hover. Wikipedia says fixed-wing doesn't imply rigid, and the note on the answer now argues that it's a fixed-wing vehicle. IDK what the technical definition of "airplane" is, but I thought this was an interesting answer. The wikipedia powered paragliding article mentions similar vehicles with the chute attached to a trike or quad cart, so the pilot isn't technically part of the structure anymore, and it's more like an ultralight. Does that count as an "airplane"?

@BaileyS: It's not my answer; I was replying in support of it after reading up to figure out what the fuss was about, and whether David had a valid criticism. I'm sure @ tuskiomi appreciates the support, but they have a decent amount of rep on some other sites so I'd guess they know how voting/moderation/deletion works. :P

@PeterCordes I see that now! As an aside, on the PCG SE each answer seems to be a diverse/valued solution to the puzzle, and submitting a "non-winner" is just fine. Each SE really has its own character...

@BaileyS I don't think David Richerby was being a jerk at all. He was posting a legitimate argument that this answer isn't within the scope of the question, and what followed was a legitimate debate on the merits of that point (and clearly there was merit since the poster edited "not a fixed wing vehicle" to "is a fixed wing vehicle" in response). Whether or not you agree that he was right or wrong is a separate matter. You calling him a jerk puts you in a far worse light to be honest, and is clearly a breach of the rules of this site.

@JBentley Do you really think that David Richerby's contributions are within the scope of the policy you linked? Since this answer is no worse than many others, which he tacitly acknowledges, his legitimate argument is at least approaching the threshold of harassment. He is trying to bully the poster into deleting an answer for which they earned a significant amount of reputation.

@JBentley I agree with Bailey. Harassing someone until they lash should not be allowed. If it is, it becomes a game of "how mean can you be whilst not snapping?" and "How can I get plausible deniability and still harass others?".

@tuskiomi With the exception of my first comment on this post (which was a comment about the post itself), every single comment I've posted here has been either a response to a direct question asked of me or a response to an accusation levelled at me. Responding to direct questions and accusations is not harassment. And I don't believe anything I've said here is in violation of site policies: my focus has been on the quality of an answer that was posted with an explicit disclaimer that it didn't answer the question.

@DavidRicherby: What is your opinion of the answer now, in its current state and given the current state of the question (tagged with [fixed-wing], but still using the word "airplane" in the title). Would it help if this answer emphasized powered paragliders that have the fan attached to a wheeled cart, or is that still not an "airplane"? I'm genuinely curious, not trying to continue the "fight"/argument.

Anyway, even if a paraglider isn't an airplane, I think it's close enough that it's interesting to point out. I don't think answers need to ignore interesting things that happen to be ruled out by the specific wording of the question, in case the asker didn't mean to rule them out!

@PeterCordes Well, the disclaimer now says it's not an airplane and the question asks for airplanes so we're back to square one... (A wing that collapses to the ground when the vehicle is stationary doesn't sound "fixed" to me, but I'll leave that to people with more expertise than I have.)