This is not at all a reasonable characterization of my post. Crucially, I didn't say that a "practical" question is inherently acceptable, nor the reverse. Also crucially, the question was edited between being closed and being reopened, which is exactly why we close questions - so that they can be fixed before they are answered. (Though as I also noted, it's still less than ideal that Stack Overflow might bow to external pressure, even when those outside voices are correct.)

My statement that the site was intended to be this way is based on literally years spent trawling through old meta discussions and discussing how the site is supposed to work with other regulars who care(d) about figuring that out - a discussion informed both by statements made by Atwood and Spolsky themselves, as well as years of experience seeing what was and wasn't working. The fact that the site didn't actually initially work as intended, doesn't in any way negate that vision. Basically nothing works as intended out of the gate, especially not when the "thing" is an attempt to organize a community around a piece of software.