2

My first question on the SciFi exchange has been marked as a duplicate, which it is clearly not. Not only does it reference it's "original" as a means of what prompted the prompted the question and to show that I already understand somewhat a remote possibility.

I mean, surely people can see the difference between:

1) How did Amy survive the crack in her wall?
and
2) How does Amy exist after her parents are erased from Time/Space?

Am I being dense or what?

| |
3

This question was closed by non-moderators, so it took 5 close votes for that decision to be reached.

In the future, it might be worth stating even more clearly in the question "there is a similar but unrelated question that says... However ".

| |
  • I have now edited my question, do you think it's an okay fit now? – Stormie Aug 22 '14 at 15:33
2

Unless I'm missing something, the answer to both questions is covered by the answer on the question that yours was marked as a duplicate of. When one answer addresses both questions, they get marked as duplicates.

| |
  • 1
    But the specific question I'm addressing is how she exists, I've kind of come to the conclusion that in the aftermath of all of this (when Rory disappears) that's why she feels she "has to go too". Because she isn't meant to exist. I don't really want to accept either "Wibbly wobbly timey wimey" or "She was at the center of it all". Surely none of it would've happened if her parents were erased, because then she wouldn't exist! – Stormie Aug 22 '14 at 15:28
  • 2
    @Stormie And the answer to that (same as the other question) is because she was at the center of the explosion. That you refuse to accept said answer doesn't make it less correct. – user1027 Aug 22 '14 at 15:29
  • 1
    I won't accept it because it can't be right, if she was never made how can she be at the center of the events that caused her to never be born? That makes no sense (I'm not trying to be rude, I just don't understand how it can be a legitimate answer) – Stormie Aug 22 '14 at 15:31
  • 2
    @Stormie that is called a paradox. – AncientSwordRage Aug 22 '14 at 16:27
  • 2
    Just because a random answer to a different question could be interpreted as maybe-perhaps answering the new question doesn't make the questions duplicates. That way lies madness, not to mention "RTFM" style rudeness. – Martha Aug 26 '14 at 18:06
  • @Martha The site designed the duplicate question mechanism to avoid rudeness. When something is marked as a dupe, it literally says 'go here for the answer'. If an answer to another, similar question answers this question, then yes it should be closed as a duplicate, per the site documentation: "Questions should be closed ... if they are sufficiently similar to existing questions and would be answered identically to them." – user1027 Aug 26 '14 at 22:50
  • @Martha Also it isn't a 'random answer', it's the (substantially) highest-voted answer. – user1027 Aug 26 '14 at 22:52
  • There's an AND in there. The question needs to be sufficiently similar to existing questions, and it needs to be answered identically. (The number of votes is a total nonsequitur: if I'm asking question A, I don't, and shouldn't, care that question P -- which is about the same character, but is otherwise unrelated to my question -- has an answer with 20,000 votes.) – Martha Aug 26 '14 at 23:07
  • By RTFM, what I mean is that because the existing answer was written in response to a different question, it is likely that even to the extent that it answers my new question, that information isn't front and center: it will require digging and interpretation to find the answer to my question. Thus, telling me that my question already has an answer there is only a fraction of a step removed from telling me to RTFM, and that fraction of a step is entirely due to the length of an answer vs. the length of a typical user manual. – Martha Aug 26 '14 at 23:16

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .