Return to Question

This is the question I am referring to. It has several downvotes, so it appears to be "systematic" rather than incidental.

I believe that there were two "technical" issues involved with my question, both perhaps deriving from that the fact that I was born in 1957, which means that 1) I much less tech savvy than average and 2) I am not completely up to date on slang. At any rate, these were the basis of two critiques in the comment.

The first issue that came up is that while I linked a relevant film clip, I do not know how to embed the image or set the time on the page (it was about 3:50, out of 4:00). That has since between fixed.

The second was that I was criticized for the use of the term "manspreading." I realize that this is done mainly on public transportation. But in the "library" scene, Harold Hill, the Music Man, sat down on a bench with his legs maximally apart, and then closed and opened them (in the context of chasing the librarian). I believe that this is a "legally accurate" definition of manspreading, even though the context is a bit unusual.

I understand that questions are often downvoted for say, "lack of research." But I placed two links in the question. So while people can fault the quality of my research, it was not for lack of trying.

And maybe it's because I'm dyslectic, but I can't tell the difference between what Harold Hill did in the film, and the example here that a poster cited.

Was the downvoting for the reasons listed in the comments? And why, given the circumstances? I don't see how the question is offensive, and while it may have been a bit weak, I did the best that I could. Is it reasonable for me to expect help or editing to fix the technical issues regarding the film clip, or the fact that I used the term "manspreading" in an unconventional way?

Under different circumstances, I would even have deleted the question but it drew a highly upvoted answer that I plan to accept.

This is the question I am referring to. It has several downvotes, so it appears to be "systematic" rather than incidental.

I believe that there were two "technical" issues involved with my question, both perhaps deriving from that the fact that I was born in 1957, which means that 1) I much less tech savvy than average and 2) I am not completely up to date on slang. At any rate, these were the basis of two critiques in the comment.

The first issue that came up is that while I linked a relevant film clip, I do not know how to embed the image or set the time on the page (it was about 3:50, out of 4:00). That has since between fixed.

The second was that I was criticized for the use of the term "manspreading." I realize that this is done mainly on public transportation. But in the "library" scene, Harold Hill, the Music Man, sat down on a bench with his legs maximally apart, and then closed and opened them (in the context of chasing the librarian). I believe that this is a "legally accurate" definition of manspreading, even though the context is a bit unusual.

I understand that questions are often downvoted for say, "lack of research." But I placed two links in the question. So while people can fault the quality of my research, it was not for lack of trying.

And maybe it's because I'm dyslectic, but I can barely tell the difference between what Harold Hill did in the film, and the example here that a poster cited.

Was the downvoting for the reasons listed in the comments? And why, given the circumstances? I don't see how the question is offensive, and while it may have been a bit weak, I did the best that I could. Is it reasonable for me to expect help or editing to fix the technical issues regarding the film clip, or the fact that I used the term "manspreading" in an unconventional way?

Under different circumstances, I would even have deleted the question but it drew a highly upvoted answer that I plan to accept.

This is the question I am referring to. It has several downvotes, so it appears to be "systematic" rather than incidental.

I believe that there were two "technical" issues involved with my question, both perhaps deriving from that the fact that I was born in 1957, which means that 1) I much less tech savvy than average and 2) I am not completely up to date on slang. At any rate, these were the basis of two critiques in the comment.

The first issue that came up is that while I linked a relevant film clip, I do not know how to embed the image or set the time on the page (it was about 3:50, out of 4:00). That has since between fixed.

The second was that I was criticized for the use of the term "manspreading." I realize that this is done mainly on public transportation. But in the "library" scene, Harold Hill, the Music Man, sat down on a bench with his legs maximally apart, and then closed and opened them (in the context of chasing the librarian). I believe that this is a "legally accurate" definition of manspreading, even though the context is a bit unusual.

I understand that questions are often downvoted for say, "lack of research." But I placed two links in the question. So while people can fault the quality of my research, it was not for lack of trying.

Was the downvoting for the reasons listed in the comments? And why, given the circumstances? I don't see how the question is offensive, and while it may have been a bit weak, I did the best that I could. Is it reasonable for me to expect help or editing to fix the technical issues regarding the film clip, or the fact that I used the term "manspreading" in an unconventional way?

Under different circumstances, I would even have deleted the question but it drew a highly upvoted answer that I plan to accept.

This is the question I am referring to. It has several downvotes, so it appears to be "systematic" rather than incidental.

I believe that there were two "technical" issues involved with my question, both perhaps deriving from that the fact that I was born in 1957, which means that 1) I much less tech savvy than average and 2) I am not completely up to date on slang. At any rate, these were the basis of two critiques in the comment.

The first issue that came up is that while I linked a relevant film clip, I do not know how to embed the image or set the time on the page (it was about 3:50, out of 4:00). That has since between fixed.

The second was that I was criticized for the use of the term "manspreading." I realize that this is done mainly on public transportation. But in the "library" scene, Harold Hill, the Music Man, sat down on a bench with his legs maximally apart, and then closed and opened them (in the context of chasing the librarian). I believe that this is a "legally accurate" definition of manspreading, even though the context is a bit unusual.

I understand that questions are often downvoted for say, "lack of research." But I placed two links in the question. So while people can fault the quality of my research, it was not for lack of trying.

And maybe it's because I'm dyslectic, but I can't tell the difference between what Harold Hill did in the film, and the example here that a poster cited.

Was the downvoting for the reasons listed in the comments? And why, given the circumstances? I don't see how the question is offensive, and while it may have been a bit weak, I did the best that I could. Is it reasonable for me to expect help or editing to fix the technical issues regarding the film clip, or the fact that I used the term "manspreading" in an unconventional way?

Under different circumstances, I would even have deleted the question but it drew a highly upvoted answer that I plan to accept.

This is the question I am referring to. It has several downvotes, so it appears to be "systematic" rather than incidental.

I believe that there were two "technical" issues involved with my question, both perhaps deriving from that the fact that I was born in 1957, which means that 1) I much less tech savvy than average and 2) I am not completely up to date on slang. At any rate, these were the basis of two critiques in the comment.

The first issue that came up is that while I linked a relevant film clip, I do not know how to embed the image or set the time on the page (it was about 3:50, out of 4:00). That has since between fixed.

The second was that I was criticized for the use of the term "manspreading." I realize that this is done mainly on public transportation. But in the "library" scene, Harold Hill, the Music Man, sat down on a bench with his legs maximally apart, and then closed and opened them (in the context of chasing the librarian). I believe that this is a "legally accurate" definition of manspreading, even though the context is a bit unusual.

I understand that questions are often downvoted for say, "lack of research." But I placed two links in the (original) question. So while people can fault the quality of my research, it was not for lack of trying.

Was the downvoting for the reasons listed in the comments? And why, given the circumstances? I don't see how the question is offensive, and while it may have been a bit weak, I did the best that I could. Is it reasonable for me to expect help or editing to fix the technical issues regarding the film clip, or the fact that I used the term "manspreading" in an unconventional way?

Under different circumstances, I would even have deleted the question but it drew a highly upvoted answer that I plan to accept.

This is the question I am referring to. It has several downvotes, so it appears to be "systematic" rather than incidental.

I believe that there were two "technical" issues involved with my question, both perhaps deriving from that the fact that I was born in 1957, which means that 1) I much less tech savvy than average and 2) I am not completely up to date on slang. At any rate, these were the basis of two critiques in the comment.

The first issue that came up is that while I linked a relevant film clip, I do not know how to embed the image or set the time on the page (it was about 3:50, out of 4:00). That has since between fixed.

The second was that I was criticized for the use of the term "manspreading." I realize that this is done mainly on public transportation. But in the "library" scene, Harold Hill, the Music Man, sat down on a bench with his legs maximally apart, and then closed and opened them (in the context of chasing the librarian). I believe that this is a "legally accurate" definition of manspreading, even though the context is a bit unusual.

I understand that questions are often downvoted for say, "lack of research." But I placed two links in the question. So while people can fault the quality of my research, it was not for lack of trying.

Was the downvoting for the reasons listed in the comments? And why, given the circumstances? I don't see how the question is offensive, and while it may have been a bit weak, I did the best that I could. Is it reasonable for me to expect help or editing to fix the technical issues regarding the film clip, or the fact that I used the term "manspreading" in an unconventional way?

Under different circumstances, I would even have deleted the question but it drew a highly upvoted answer that I plan to accept.