Oh come on tye, you can do better than that! "consideration votes"? They stood at:

Considered: [demerphq] delete, obviously the BrowserUK doesnt want us 
+to see the flaw

Keep/Edit/Delete: 2/0/23
[download]

when I posted. How many more delete votes does it take?

Have you ever watched a politician change the subject when asked a question they don't want to answer?

It can have 1000 delete votes and still not be reaped. A node won't be reaped if it has 4+ edit votes, or 2+ edit votes and one keep vote, or 2+ keep votes, or 0+ reputation.

...unless voting is overridden by one of the gods, which happens only very rarely.

I was replying to:

So, I did a little research and discovered that it is perfectly acceptable to blank ones node, or request that ones mistakes be deleted--depending upon who you are!

I've repeatedly complained about people blanking their nodes and about other people enabling such immature handling of mistakes (voting for reaping). Occasionally getting a whole 5 people to vote "delete" before anybody notices doesn't qualify as evidence of being "perfectly acceptable" to me.

And your conclusion about the difference between your case and the cases you found being based on who wrote the node is... well, worthy of ridicule, hence what I wrote.

I frankly have no idea what you think I'm trying to change the subject from. Are you so dense as to think that there is some vendetta involved preventing your node from being reaped? If so, then you either haven't read or haven't understood the nodes posted to this thread (including one before your reply above).

Now you've been told why the automated system didn't reap your node and why I refuse to use site priveleges to reap such nodes.

My preference would be that you replace the node with an explanation of your line of thinking and how you realized the flaw in it so we could all learn from it, which is a large point of this site. But that is up to you.

- tye        

And there is a part of the problem.

<Q>I've repeatedly complained...</Q>

<Q>...hence what I wrote.</Q>

<Q>...why I refuse to...</Q>

<Q>My preference would be...</Q>

Though my post was not prompted particularly by what the rules are (though I admit that I disagree with many of them), but of the consistency (or utter lack thereof) of their application.

For the record, the flaw in my argument was a vague recollection of this.

Later, once I had looked that up, I created a skeletal tie::array class:

Read more... (3 kB)