Neville Chaim Berlin,
“The only ones doing that here are you and Richmond, to the degree that I’m surprised it’s even allowed.”
Of course it should not be allowed, because you disagree.
“”And, then a mere few sentences later you say this:””
“Actually, I offered several reasons why Rav Moshe would allow an eruv in Brooklyn”
Reading comprehension alert! How does “would allow” translate that he allowed. The point being, that he would allow according to his shitos. As I wrote, I do not know if he actually would have agreed to an eruv. It is possible that he would have added to his shitos and ossered. However, according to what he wrote there are reasons to allow. We definitely have no right to add to his chiddushim, in order to object to an eruv. There is no reason that the resting position is that an eruv is osser.
““Rav Moshe is not a rebbe””
“Why do you feel the need to keep saying this?”
Because a rebbe’s word does not require any qualification. On the other hand a posek bases his outcomes on placing facts in context.
“Actually no. We recently had a thread on here where posters were using a very similar argument that the poskim didn’t have the right facts, therefore they were wrong. In that case, the debate was about electricity on Shabbos, but it’s the same idea.”
It is rare that people argue as such. Most teshuvos require context and facts. When the facts are otherwise it is a given that the teshuvah is not applicable. The story with electricity, is unique, and there are auditory reason to prohibit. I would argue that its not proof to anything.