# GQ is for factual answers, not WAGs. **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 15, 2011, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701 "2011-10-15T02:28:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 8:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/21 "2011-10-15T08:38:03Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > You have the wrong idea. Scottrade will allow direct transfers from your bank to your Scottrade account. You will have to verify that you are indeed the owner of the bank account. One (not required) way to validate that information quickly is to provide the correct login and password for said bank. I understand this perfectly well. But for anyone who’s been on the Internet longer than five minutes, the statement “_X_ has asked me for me online banking login and password,” should immediately set off all kinds of mental warning bells. In the vast majority of cases, this is a phish. It’s been constantly drilled into people for the last fifteen years _never_ to disclose their password for online financial service providers. Not even to the financial service provider themselves. I could go into my spam folder right now and pull up literally hundreds of messages claiming to be from PayPal, banks, credit card providers, and other financial companies requesting my passwords. They are, without exception, fraudsters. So it turns out there is a tiny minority of legitimate companies out there which are also doing for non-fraudulent purposes. This doesn’t alter the fact that in over 99% of cases, it’s a con. Since the OP didn’t make it clear that he was dealing with these \< 1% of cases, why should we have assumed he was? When you hear hoofbeats around these parts, you think horses, not zebras. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/22 "2011-10-15T16:37:51Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Once you failed to do us the courtesy of proving your claims yourself, I did so, posted the result of my research, and then admitted that you were right after all. I would have even apologized to you but for the fact that you told me to fuck off. GQ ain’t baseball either. You don’t get three whacks at being right. And even if I were talking about 1% of cases, it’s up to you to get the proper factual information before making a blanket, bombastic, and wrong statement. Two wrong WAGs and then some researching for your third post isn’t how you answer GQs. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/23 "2011-10-15T16:43:05Z")
This is the SDMB. People post here just to see their trite and ignorant opinions displayed on the internet, not to provide any sort of enlightenment or help of any kind to anyone. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/24 "2011-10-15T16:46:18Z")
umadbro? ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/25 "2011-10-15T16:49:52Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > umadbro? I’m turning into **ivn1188**. ---
**Author:** ![Rhythmdvl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/85f322/32.png) [@Rhythmdvl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rhythmdvl)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/26 "2011-10-15T17:28:48Z")
Reported. Clearly, all of the responses in this thread are socks of someone pretending to be Scottrade, or one of their corrupt employees. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/27 "2011-10-15T17:34:38Z")
I can’t believe how many times I open a GQ thread and the very first post is someone saying: “Just a wild guess, but…” WTF? If you don’t know the answer, don’t fucking lead off the the thread with a guess. And 9 times out of 10, it’s a really stupid guess. The worst part is that there are several posters who do this over and over again. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/28 "2011-10-15T18:12:06Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I can’t believe how many times I open a GQ thread and the very first post is someone saying: “Just a wild guess, but…” > > WTF? If you don’t know the answer, don’t fucking lead off the the thread with a guess. And 9 times out of 10, it’s a really stupid guess. > > The worst part is that there are several posters who do this over and over again. I don’t have a massive problem with this, although it depends on the subject matter. The problem comes when people guess incorrectly, and get mardy when called on it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/29 "2011-10-15T18:14:34Z")
Let me get this straight. You went to an online message board asking for free advice from a random assortment of complete strangers. And then you complained about the quality of the answers you got? ---
**Author:** ![bucketybuck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@bucketybuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bucketybuck)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/30 "2011-10-15T18:17:52Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > Oh, my first pitting. Goody! > Why should we believe you simply because you repeat your rather remarkable assertion? If you post a vague claim about a practice that goes so contrary to common sense, it’s only natural that people are going to be incredulous and suggest a more likely explanation for what you are observing. And yes, phishing _is_ by many orders of magnitude more common than legitimate financial service providers asking for your credentials for that of another financial service provider. Since the latter practice apparently actually exists in spite of its obvious dumbfuckery, perhaps what you should have done is provided some evidence for it instead of merely gainsaying posters who were trying to help you. > Don’t be disingenuous. Once you failed to do us the courtesy of proving your claims yourself, I did so, posted the result of my research, and then admitted that you were right after all. I would have even apologized to you but for the fact that you told me to fuck off. But why were you in the GQ thread in the first place, when you didn’t actually know the answer? ---
**Author:** ![Snarky\_Kong](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a183cd/32.png) [@Snarky\_Kong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snarky_Kong)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/31 "2011-10-15T18:37:51Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Let me get this straight. You went to an online message board asking for free advice from a random assortment of complete strangers. And then you complained about the quality of the answers you got? The little used “if it is broken, don’t try to fix it.” ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Finn](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dewey_finn/32/4222_2.png) [@Dewey\_Finn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Finn)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/32 "2011-10-15T18:47:29Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > I can’t believe how many times I open a GQ thread and the very first post is someone saying: “Just a wild guess, but…” > > WTF? If you don’t know the answer, don’t fucking lead off the the thread with a guess. And 9 times out of 10, it’s a really stupid guess. > > The worst part is that there are several posters who do this over and over again. True, but sometimes, someone opens a GQ thread and then comes back later to complain, “What, did I stump the SDMB?”, when their thread hasn’t received a response. Sometimes, that’s because _no one knows_ the answer to the question. So which is it? Do the originators of GQ threads only want factual answers and for their threads to be ignored otherwise, or do they want whatever limited information can be provided by the members and risk that some answers are going to be guesses, albeit educated ones? ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 6:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/33 "2011-10-15T18:58:58Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Let me get this straight. You went to an online message board asking for free advice from a random assortment of complete strangers. And then you complained about the quality of the answers you got? I also have 10 years and thousands of posts where I answered questions. Pay it forward bitches! ---
**Author:** ![minor7flat5](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/minor7flat5/32/258_2.png) [@minor7flat5](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minor7flat5)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/34 "2011-10-15T19:38:56Z")
I don’t know if the general tenor of GQ has changed over the years or it’s just my own waning patience, but I am getting tired of WAGs and joke posts made before an answer is given in good faith. ---
**Author:** ![psychonaut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/psychonaut/32/4655_2.png) [@psychonaut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/psychonaut)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/35 "2011-10-15T19:49:10Z")
> [@bucketybuck](#): > > But why were you in the GQ thread in the first place, when you didn’t actually know the answer? People often ask questions in GQ [not realizing that they’re vague, or don’t make sense, or rest on faulty assumptions.](http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html) Being the helpful sort of folk we are here, many of us will disambiguate the vagueness or correct what we believe to be the fault in the OP’s assumptions, and then provide the information we thought the OP needed to know. Would you prefer instead that such questions be always taken literally and answered unhelpfully, as a snarky poster did in Comment #13 of the thread on [the ICQ number for Firefox](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=623538)? As no further context or proof was provided, the correct answer to the **treis** ’s question in the first instance _was_ “You are being phished. Get help.” A good analogy would be if someone had posted in GQ saying that he had just bought the Brooklyn Bridge and asking if he could then set up a toll booth. Given the enormous unlikelihood of the premise upon which the question rests, the correct response is, “No you didn’t buy the Brooklyn Bridge. You got scammed by a con artist.” If the OP were then to post “No, really! I bought it from the New York City Department of Transportation,” the correct response is still, “No you didn’t. The con artist is merely pretending to be from the DOT.” It’s just barely conceivable that the government of New York City really did decide to privatize the bridge and that the OP did indeed purchase the title, but it’s so far out of the realm of probability that one can’t be faulted for failing to consider it. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/36 "2011-10-15T19:50:59Z")
You could have made your question a bit clearer. You knew what you were talking about, but your two-line OP was sufficiently vague as to be misinterpreted as the plaintive wail of someone being scammed. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 9:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/37 "2011-10-15T21:11:29Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I also have 10 years and thousands of posts where I answered questions. Yeah…about that…we’ve been meaning to talk to you about those answers you gave… ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 15, 2011, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/38 "2011-10-15T22:19:29Z")
> [@psychonaut](#): > > People often ask questions in GQ [not realizing that they’re vague, or don’t make sense, or rest on faulty assumptions.](http://homepage.ntlworld.com/jonathan.deboynepollard/FGA/put-down-the-chocolate-covered-banana.html) Being the helpful sort of folk we are here, many of us will disambiguate the vagueness or correct what we believe to be the fault in the OP’s assumptions, and then provide the information we thought the OP needed to know. Would you prefer instead that such questions be always taken literally and answered unhelpfully, as a snarky poster did in Comment #13 of the thread on [the ICQ number for Firefox](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=623538)? > > As no further context or proof was provided, the correct answer to the **treis** ’s question in the first instance _was_ “You are being phished. Get help.” A good analogy would be if someone had posted in GQ saying that he had just bought the Brooklyn Bridge and asking if he could then set up a toll booth. Given the enormous unlikelihood of the premise upon which the question rests, the correct response is, “No you didn’t buy the Brooklyn Bridge. You got scammed by a con artist.” If the OP were then to post “No, really! I bought it from the New York City Department of Transportation,” the correct response is still, “No you didn’t. The con artist is merely pretending to be from the DOT.” It’s just barely conceivable that the government of New York City really did decide to privatize the bridge and that the OP did indeed purchase the title, but it’s so far out of the realm of probability that one can’t be faulted for failing to consider it. The difference being that I wasn’t operating under false assumptions or asking a nonsensical question. The problem is that you didn’t know what I was talking about. The people that did know what I was talking about knew exactly what my question was asking. If you asked if I was getting fished, fine, whatever. But you didn’t. You made a definitive statement that I was. Twice. And both times were incorrect. ---
**Author:** ![Nancarrow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@Nancarrow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nancarrow)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/39 "2011-10-16T17:42:32Z")
> [@treis](#): > > I posted [this thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=627774) asking how those instant verification. That reminds me of the time I wanted to know if armadilloes. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 16, 2011, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701/40 "2011-10-16T18:46:50Z")
> [@Nancarrow](#): > > That reminds me of the time I wanted to know if armadilloes. Yes, they do, but only when the truck [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gq-is-for-factual-answers-not-wags/599701.md?page=3)