Theists and atheists, how is this answer to the "empty tomb question" so offensive?

I'm guessing they got you on "Q&A format", as you answered a question with another question.

While any normal person would see that as perfectly valid in the context, report monkeys aren't normal people, and we have to learn defensive posting so as to best avoid their malice.

So perhaps a safer answer would be: "I don't - not any more than I can explain Poseidon's missing trident", which gets the same message across and is a valid answer. It would also be easy to defend against any given reason of "offensive content".

I've had a high rate of reinstatement over the last year (over 90%), and almost all the VN reasons have been "Q&A format", showing the weaselly lack of integrity that such report monkeys have. The ones I fail on are where no reason is given, so there's no counter-argument possible. For those I blame Y!A themselves, as I feel they they shouldn't allow VNs without reasons.

However, be under no doubt that report monkeys are malicious, and they will exploit the rules to try to knock down others. Post safely!

Edit:

Pay close attention to the VN reason, and always use that as the basis for the counter-argument. If you get one without a reason, I'd urge you to complain about that, as it's only by user pressure that Y!A will change their policy of allowing that.

@AJ:

That's irrelevant - posts should not be VNed simply on a basis of being regarded as accurate or not (according to someone's *opinion*). You're equating "disagree" to "report" which is what report monkeys do, and is an attitude that goes against the very basis of free speech.

Some people are just close-minded and lack humour and will report anything that does not meet the answer that they already have in their mind.

Moreover, isn't it ironic that they don't take some of their Bible literally but they can't understand what you mean?

Guess what. I posted a question on Jesus being well travelled because a remote village in Japan and India claimed they had Jesus buried there (his tomb is there). It's is true! Just google it. And I had my question reported too.

The second time around, it probably got seen as a non-answer. Even just explaining it a little more or phrasing it differently may have allowed it to stick. Like, "The same way you explain Poseidon's trident."

As for why it got reported in the first place? Maybe because they viewed it as a non-answer or maybe because a "thumbs down" just wasn't enough for them. I don't know.

I would have given it a thumbs up!

Yeah, that stinks, Michelle.

I had the same issue for the exact same reason.

After the first appeal was denied, I wrote the following (not exact, but close)

"There are many ways to use the English language. Sometimes, literary devices are used.

Metaphors, allusions, and in some cases rhetorical questions. A rhetorical question is a literary device that is not really a question, but a statement that can be extrapolated by understanding the subtle ways our language can be used. In the future, I will try to limit my use of such obscure and difficult to understand literary concepts, as well as restrict my word choice and diction to third-grade level."

My appeal was granted and the answer reposted. :)

Your answer makes sense when explained, but not everyone would understand your point when all you say is "How do you explain Poseidon's trident?" If they don't understand it, they immediately report it. It makes them feel like they have a huge wang or something.

Fairly simple explanation the first reinstatement was handled by a reviewer educated outside the US, the second being by an American educated reviewer incapable of interpreting innuendo or irony. Simple rules for american reviewers, question must have what, why or how, for first word, answer must have "I believe", or "the bible says"

Typical of xtians to take an opportunity to claim offense so they can engage in their favorite activity, censoring and banning anything that criticizes their views or logically points out how likely they are to be a myth.

Is it surprising that his tomb was empty when there is no real evidence that this man called Jesus ever existed outside Paul's imagination.

I don't find it offensive, but it does arguably violate the community guidelines, since you cannot answer a question with a question. Next time you should just give the explanation you described above.

Let me guess...?

They said something about answering a question with a question?

I find nothing wrong with your answer and it makes perfect sense. People don't want it pointed out that their mythology is exactly that... Mythology.