A classification of responses in General Questions forum

Over the years I have noticed a pattern to the responses to questions in the General Questions forum, which is chartered for discussion of questions with factual answers. Answers seem to fall into these categories:
**
Hijack. A hijack is when someone goes off on a tangent unaccetapbly far removed from the point of the original post. Sometimes the hijacker attempts to get away with this by humorously identifying his post as a hijack. The social acceptability of the hijack depends on how far off topic it goes. For example, if someone asks about the shelf life of yogurt, and another poster says, “Yeah, and what about buttermilk?”, it is probably tolerable. However, if a hijacker says, “Yeah, and why is Dannon’s stock price up today?”, it is definitely a hijack.

WAG (wild-assed guess). The poster has no idea what the answer is but since he called up the thread he figured he might as well post something. The poster admits it’s a WAG.

Air of Authority. This is very similar to a WAG but the poster does not explicitly say it’s a WAG, and allows the reader to mistakenly assume that the poster might actually be knowledgable in the area.

IANAx. “I am not a ______” (usually L for Lawyer). The poster is providing a response based in some personal experience or study, but is not sufficiently expert so as to represent the response as authoritative fact. Caveat emptor.

Genuine Authority. Someone with genuine expertise in the area responds with the indisputable truth, which often contradicts the WAG, Air of Authority, and IANAx posts. Too uncommon, IMHO.

The Googler. The poster didn’t really know the answer and might not even understand it but is good enough with search engines to find definitive answers on the Internet and provide links.

The Cecil Adams Fan. This poster simply puts a link to a Straight Dope column that answers the question, generally referring to “The Master” in hushed tones.

"What He Said." The poster agrees with a prior post but adds no further information.

Simulpost. Two or more posters provide a similar response in a time frame so short that neither one realized the other was posting.

The Flame. Criticism of the OP for a naive, poorly worded, or inappropriate question, or just for no reason at all. Also less than civil criticism of other posters.

The Joker. Provides a humorous answer to the OP, or possibly a snappy comeback to the subject line, or sometimes a link to something humorous. Usually includes a smiley in case we didn’t realize it’s a joke.

Two more:

The nitpicker. Well, pretty much me posting like this.

The misposter. I agree, the Yankees are going to win it all.

Oh, hell. He’s on to me.

Bah…CookingWithGas, you partycrasher you!

Never again will I be able to do some unencumbered drive-by-posting in GQ.

What about the posters who, instead of actually answering the question, posts “We’ve covered this before” or some similar response, while linking about 5-6 different threads? You can almost hear their underwear bunching up their ass.

Someone attempted to calm this type of person down by explaining that part of the fun of the message boards is having people respond to a thread you started yourself. I agree with this wholeheartedly.

The announcer - So and so will be along shortly to respond to your question.

While posting “we’ve done this” in a rude way is never appropriate, you’ll notice that this thread addresses the General Questions Forum, where links to previous explorations of the same facts are actually a way to provide more comprehensive answers.

(Of course, I now recognize that I suffer multiple personality disorder, since I have posted in six of the eleven modes of posts described in the OP–seven if we use Silmuposter as a unique category–as well as providing links to earlier answers of the same question.)

Casey, this can be done courteously – if you ask something about, say, the British Royal Family that reminds me of the extensive discussion we had in January, in which a lot of interesting facts related to the topic, including the direct answer to your question and the answer to the ancillary question also posed by the guy who first responded with an acknowledged WAG, saying “In this thread <–(supposed to be a hyperlink to it in reality) Duck Duck Goose Googled up the definitive answer to Casey1505’s OP and Guinastasia answered Rabid Ferret’s question as well,” I cannot see how that would be impolite.

The one that drives me up the wall is the reading-challenged, when confronted with a GQ they provide an answer (perhaps correct) to a different question. Gnaws on computer

As a frequent WAGer, I’d like to point out that sometimes a WAG is offered when it appears no factual answer is forthcoming.