Isn't Which countries do have both a motive and a capability of disrupting Nord Stream? a more ambiguous and less precise duplicate of https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/75825 ?
-
2They appear to be distinct questions to me as they are asking for different data in the question and asking for less speculative data in getting the answer. That and you can't really call something a duplicate of a deleted question.– Joe WCommented Sep 30, 2022 at 18:53
-
@JoeW The fact that a question is marked as deleted at this very moment (don't deny you voting for its deletion) is independent of something else being its duplicate.– user44356Commented Sep 30, 2022 at 18:56
-
1I never denied voting to delete anything, just stating that a deleted question can't be the target of a duplicate. What happens to one question doesn't dictate what happens to another.– Joe WCommented Sep 30, 2022 at 18:58
-
4They're closely related, but do look different. Your question may've gotten a rougher reception since it does come off as leading in a questionable direction. StackExchange isn't meant to be a battle-field, so when it comes to more controversial or/and opinionated topics, there's a greater onus for diligent structuring.– NatCommented Oct 1, 2022 at 16:13
-
@Nat Don't your attributes "leading" and "questionable" much better describe the questions having “motive”, “still not totally clear”, “coincidence”, “nothing reliable”, “interesting to discuss” in their title and text? (I can't help it if all the data points to an elephant in the room, though, maybe, we're wrong about the data. It's not my point to blame a country anyway.)– user44356Commented Oct 1, 2022 at 16:35
-
2@GeekestGeek: The sub-questions were probably the part that seemed the most leading. And I get it.. you might see an elephant in the room, and in theory, you should be able to ask a question about it on StackExchange. And, in theory, if you were wrong to see things that way, then someone could write a good answer by frame-challenging the premises. Unfortunately, StackExchange has a fairly simplistic Q&A-format that doesn't really lend itself to the sorts of back-and-forth discussions that such an issue might call for.– NatCommented Oct 1, 2022 at 16:46
-
@Nat The sub-questions ask about the data; none of them calls for discussion or speculation. I can't help it if some folks dislike the data …– user44356Commented Oct 1, 2022 at 16:52
-
3Others would disagree with you on that as what you are asking for does nothing to give evidence or prove that a country was involved in the act of sabotage. It is very possible you could have multiple questions that fall into all 5 of your questions that have nothing to do with what happened and would have worked to stop if if they could have.– Joe WCommented Oct 1, 2022 at 17:00
-
1@GeekestGeek: When your question was originally closed, the body basically said to disregard the title-question and instead consider the sub-questions. Substituting the sub-questions for the title-question was a naive mistake. So it's not an issue of folks disliking the data, but rather the mode of analysis you'd selected.– NatCommented Oct 1, 2022 at 17:08
-
@JoeW Though nobody says “absolutely nothing in common”, there is still a difference between gathering the fact and establishing the guilt. To compare with a criminal investigation, the formed is the perrogative of the police investigators, the latter the task of a judge. We are in the investigative phase here.– user44356Commented Oct 1, 2022 at 22:17
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
I agree with Nat and won't repeat all his comment points here (he should probably post an answer) that the less leading (title) question posted by kandi and then edited to have some text by Trilarion is more suitable. I don't quite see the point of the "structured question", consisting of multiple sub Qs that GeekestGeek posted, at this point, in particular because those points have been basically raised by Putin and various other Russian officials so can (and have been) covered in answers to the more neutral/general question.
answered Oct 2, 2022 at 3:44
