A debate seems to have arisen over my answer to this question.
The OP accepted it, meaning that he apparently saw value in it.
I took the OP's acceptance to mean, "This is a pretty good answer, even though it wasn't quite the one I was looking for," or "this may be the best answer obtainable" (because I cited General Chuikov, rather than the "usual Soviet propoganda sources.")
Then a couple other commentators pointed out (correctly), that my answer didn't answer the question EXACTLY as it was posed. One of them cast a down vote. This strikes me as being "more royalist than the king, more Catholic than the Pope."
When the shoe was on the other foot, I UPVOTED (but will not accept) a "pretty good" answer to one of my own questions, even though it was not quite what I was looking for. It was basically the hardest question I could think up, and I was thrilled that someone would even TRY to answer it. (And the response pointed out that my question might not have been clear so I added an extra word for emphasis.)
On another site (the now defunct Economics site), a moderator pointed out that I hadn't answered the OP's question. My reply was: "The OP asked FOUR questions. I answered ONE of them. To the OP's satisfaction" (he accepted it).
So should we allow some leeway in answering questions? In my case, at least, I sometimes am not clear in my own mind what I mean when I pose a question. So I will tend to upvote any answer that I consider to be "in the zone." Since I want answers, I won't hold answerers to a "strict construction." Should others do so?