As I said, I feel that this newer question is, mathematically speaking, a duplicate of the previous question. The material that has not been duplicated is subjective and argumentative: it has long since been agreed that the original response in question was not a complete proof. (If it matters, I was the second person to assert its incompleteness, and I filled in the missing details in a comment.) The discussion has now shifted to whether this is "acceptable" in various senses.
Most of the participation has been in the comments, many of the participants seem frustrated with each other, and many of them have commented that they are finished, or want to be finished, with the question but keep getting dragged back into it.
So I could have listed subjective/argumentative as well, and perhaps I should have. (Of course, I can only choose one.)
Of course people need not agree with me, but as a policy matter, I do not see why discussion on meta is necessary before casting a vote to close. (From what I have read, Mr. Dubuque seems to advocate that almost any vote to close should be discussed on meta. This is a tenable position, but not the standard one.)
Finally, if I were Douglas S. Stones, the continued existence of this question would annoy me to the point of seriously contemplating taking my PhD-level math expertise elsewhere. Probably even those who view his answer as being "bogus" (not such a nice word) consider the bogusness to be a forgivable sin, and I hope they will take this into account.