I think the asker should be encouraged to select the answer that is correct for their original question and then ask another question. Part of participating in this forum is recognizing it as a resource for all users and not just personal consulting help.
Questions that devolve into back-and-forth conversation make it hard for other readers to glean the message, or for new answerers to provide alternative approaches. Searchs can then turn up many false negatives with tangential content.
The rules of this site encourage posts with a "laser focus" on a specific, statistical question, to provide only the salient details, and to upvote/select answers that address their question. If there is a lack of clarity, the readers and answerers will either ask for it or provide a case-by-case strategy. If the question is answerable and on-topic in its current form, it shouldn't be changed. Follow-up questions with segue from previous attempts will often hyperlink those questions to provide some context, but still ask a sufficiently detailed question in their own right.
Think of it this way: if the asker was aware of the full breadth of their problem, would it be justified to split into two questions at the outset? Often times I believe the answer is yes.