Must we rename "General Questions" as "General Assertions"

The BBQ Pit
1

I’d like to put this in GQ (for what I hope are obvious reasons) but my OP does not have a factual answer. I suppose it could go in MPSIMS, but that may not be the best choice if any of the responses become, how shall I put this, inflamed. So, the Pit it will be.

On the front page of these Boards, one is asked, “Got a factual question . . .Post it here (GQ)?” Do you see what’s missing? There should be another bit with words to the effect of, “for answers that can be backed up. If you want to give your opinion, please note 'IMHO” below".

As it stands, the criteria for posting an answer in GQ is implicit (factual questions should have factual answers). It should become explicit. And, the phrase “with cites if possible” should be appended.

The GQ reality? Here, let me illustrate it with a hypothetical example (I actually do have real examples, too many of them in fact. But, my point is not to embarrass anybody, so I’ll stick to make-believe).

Question: I heard from a guy at work that the Gabonese tree monkey has three testicles. Is this true?

Totally Useless Answer #1: No

Totally Useless Answer #2: Well, it makes sense because testicles are so valuable for reproduction that having an extra one would have an evolutionary advantage.

Totally Useless Answer #3: Yeah, I heard the same thing once.

Confusing Answer #4: Ok, here’s a cite in a site*. Apparently, according to them, there’s no proof that such a species exist.
(*clicking on the link takes you to a site extolling the virtues of urine drinking and avoidance of all man-made products. It contains many internal links to health sites that make you somewhat suspect (www.coffee_enema.com, www.monkeyscrotum.org, etc.) of any statement made therein.)

Minimally Helpful Answer #5: I heard the same thing too. I don’t have a cite but remember looking it up and finding no data to support it.

Possibly Helpful Answer #6: I aked my brother-in-law who’s a vet and he said that he heard the same rumour in veterinary college but there was nothing to back it up and none of his profs could find a reference to it.

Possibly Helpful Answer #7: Well, I think you’re all wrong. When I visited Gabon last year, I saw a bunch of three-balled monkeys (and one of them seemed to delight in playing with all three :cool: )

Possibly Helpful Answer #8: OK, it does appear that the species exist. Although I can’t link to the manuscript itself, I found a back issue of “Mammalian Testicles” 1962; 21:344, where the animal is described and confirmation given of the males’ three-balled status.

Helpful Answer #9: Got it! Look here. The link is to an online jounral of comparative physiology. From the abstract:

(emphasis added)

Nice GQ Answer #10: Finally, my chance! I am a comparative physiologist (!) and my thesis was on the three-testicled Gabonese tree monkey (simiiformes tres testensis). Not only does the species exist (link, link, link), but the same phenomenon has been described for at least two other orders of primates (link, link)!

So, I ask - is it possible, is it even desirable, to at least try to have some minimum standards for answers in GQ?

2

I don’t think it’s desirable – the give-and-play is one of the things that makes this Board the joy it is.

If you’re an omnipotent omniscient being who watches this, or if you’ve waited until all the results are in, you say that #9 and #10 are all you need, and the others shouldn’t have wasted their time. But some good does come from the others, and it’s interesting to see how the answer “evolves”. And if you’re one of those less-than-perfectly-helpful posters, but you’re posting the best you know, then why shouldn’t you post? sometimes non-authoritative results without cites are the best you’re gonna get.

And, besides, your example leaves out the case of a respectable cite with an answer that disagrees with the other respectable cite.
Finally, I’m all for posting humorous responses, even in GQ. Nyaah!

3

All the monkeys I’ve ever seen only had two testicles.

4

How the fuck do you see monkey testicles from a hundred fucking feet in the air, which is the average height of the male giraffe? Link.

5

Monkeys climb trees, giraffes eat the leaves from trees. I should imagine they were in the perfect position to count monkey testicles.

6

I know a monkey with only one testicle, but he had an accident riding a motorcycle. :eek:

7

Count me in among those who enjoy the occasional unhelpful wisecrack or WAG in GQ. At the very worst, it bumps your thread, maybe until a real expert shows up.

8

Giraffe, do the monkeys you see ever seem to be in, you know, a lot of pain?

9

Totally Useless Answer #1: No

I thought Totally Useless Answer #1 was supposed to be “You’re up in a baloon!”

I note that you don’t count answer #4 as being totally useless. :dubious: Do you have a cite for that?

10

Are you sure he wasn’t playing with a nail gun?

11

Apparently, the answer to the question the OP raises is: no.

Idiots get very defensive when challenged on their right to post useless garbage and speculation in lieu of factual answers. They scream loudly about how opinions should be treated with as much deference as facts. Eradicating this attitude has thus far proven impossible.

12

I suspect from a Welshman, that is considered to be brilliant argument. However, as everyone knows monkeys live underground, Cite, and are therefore out of the Giraffe’s field of vision. They also wear invisibility cloaks, and are therefore almost completely unknown to giraffes.

13

the real problem isn’t that idiots will get upset. It’s that saying “Only people who really know the answer” opens a ludicrously big can of worms. One that, to my mind, is antithetical to the spirit of a good Message Board.

14

Giraffe, have you recently spotted Bricker in a tree?

15

How strange that you’ve only ever seen male monkeys. Is this intentional?

16

And we should be ever mindfull of Zymurgy’s Law of Expanding Systems Dynamics – **“Once you open a can of worms, it is impossible to re-can them, except by using a larger can.”
**

17

** Great** now I’ve got that useless little ditty (“Giraffe and Bricker sittin in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G”) in my head. thanks buddy. :mad: ( :wink: )

in answer to the OP. It certainly can be tiresome, but look at it this way (picture your head tilted to the side… ) - with each answer, the thread gets bumped, so while the actual poster who knows (and can back up ) the correct answer is down at Starbucks getting his half caff w/ no foam, the thread doesn’t fall off the front page, thus allowing said poster easy access to providing the desired GQ answer.

:smiley:

18

I agree with this. Having such a rule in place would be asking that those who think they know the answer, those who do know part of the answer, those who think they may have overheard the answer, those who just looked up the answer and misunderstood it, and all their brethren be able to distinguish themselves from those few, like me, who actually know the answer.

19

Nope, crushed it on the tank when he had a head on with a Hummer.

20

Wouldn’t that be “crushed it on the chin when he had a head on with a Hummer?”