Snark like this is neither productive nor accurate.
Regarding the now flagged and killed response:
> Link to a duplicate that isn't actually a duplicate, yet you will still get your question closed as a duplicate with a link to the "dupe" you linked and directly stated as not actually a duplicate.
Unfortunately, it would be both too time consuming and too traumatic to share with you the years of experience I have on the meta site of people protesting that their very obvious duplicates were not duplicates because of trivial and irrelevant details, not to mention the people resisting the idea of duplicate closure on principle. But as I've said in other comments already: if you think something isn't a duplicate, you're welcome to take the case to the meta site.
Regarding the now flagged and killed response:
> Link to a duplicate that isn't actually a duplicate, yet you will still get your question closed as a duplicate with a link to the "dupe" you linked and directly stated as not actually a duplicate.
Unfortunately, it would be both too time consuming and too traumatic to share with you the years of experience I have on the meta site of people protesting that their very obvious duplicates were not duplicates because of trivial and irrelevant details, not to mention the people resisting the idea of duplicate closure on principle. But as I've said in other comments already: if you think something isn't a duplicate, you're welcome to take the case to the meta site.