In at least two previous GQ threads on legal issues, you’ve given flat-out false information. At least once it was well after the correct answer had already been given. Now in this thread you waste everyone’s time with an answer that a) is little better than posting “I don’t know” which is pointless and b) doesn’t even have the saving grace of being amusing. So the next time your fat fingers get the urge to post in GQ on a topic about which you clearly no nothing, put down the mouse and step the fuck off.
C’mon where’s the righteous rage? The ripping apart the previous wrong posts into bloody little shreds? (links to those threads if possible I’m curious I’d never heard of that poster before)
Yeah, that was a useless answer.
I wonder if anyone’s going to get all indignant on Otto for calling Fat Bald Guy fat…
Well, I started to get all irate and pissed off, because I am a overweight male with a shaven head, and I thought for a minute that Otto was calling me out. Then I remembered that there is someone with the screen-name. Dodged a bullet there! 
But the others are correct, Otto. Where is the fervor? The passion? The arbitrary use of the word “fuck?”
Well, fuck, that was a fuckin’ waste of time.
I only opened the thread to watch the screaming vulture-pickin’s at the use of the evil word “fat” before I realized that yeah, it was somebody’s name.
Damn. Foiled again.
Here’s one of them. Particularly egregious since the correct answer was given, by an actual lawyer, well before FBG chimed in off-key. Had FBG taken the time to actually read the thread before spouting off…but alas that would appear to be too much to hope for.
A) I thought it was mildly amusing.
B) I don’t think that reading 12 words is such a grevious waste of time that it deserves a pit thread.
C) The level of outrage at a 12 word response in your OP here suggests that perhaps you should consider getting a hobby or something.
D) The only other post you linked to shows FBG not reading ahead and making an error. Horrors. :rolleyes: A brief scan of several other of his posts don’t show that behavior as typical of him. He hardly seems to be Handy.
Thus I conclude that FBG made an error in (to give Otto the benefit of the doubt) two GD threads, as well as made a vaguely amusing remark in a third. I also conclude that in this case, Otto’s being so thin skinned that he looks like the Visible Man.
Fenris
I thought Otto was pitting fat, bald guys like me and I came to defend our thumb-esque heads and magnificent physiques.
Otto: Hear, hear.
BTW, I bet this thread gets lots of views, as the SDAWDPL* swoops in (like a swarm of plus-size Valkyries) in righteous indignation, only to leave disappointed.
*Straight Dope Anti Weight Discrimination Protection League
[Fudd Singing]
Oh, Bwunhilda, you’re so wuvley…
[/Fudd Singing]
Just curious…is this pitting in place of, or in addition to the cigar cutter?
playing with my guillotine cutter as I type/shudder
Otto is right to complain.
The issue is not “12 words.” The issue is posting incorrect information in response to a GQ query, be it of seven words, nineteen, or fifty-three words. Now, I agree that doing this once is less egregious than doing it fifty-three times, a la Handy (who, I might point out, had a set of defenders himself.) And in recognition of that small number of FBG offenses, Otto posted a relatively mild Pitting.
- Rick
Granted, it was a mild pitting. But it was also an unnecessary pitting. By your reasoning anyone who gives an incorrect answer in GQ is fair game for a pit-thread. And that, while better than the current crop of political pit-threads, is still not conducive to either an interesting Pit or good responses in GQ.
Anyway, there’s no actual rule against giving a “best guess” or an “in my experience” answer in GQ that I can find, despite the fact that “best guess” answers seem to piss some folks off. And there shouldn’t be such a rule. The forum isn’t limited only to people 100% certain of an answer with reference materials and cites available and a doctorate in the topic. The thread that Otto linked to has FBG giving the standard “IANAL” disclaimer so that certainly puts his answer in the “best guess” category. It’s not as though he’s trying to offer authortative legal advice.
Second, the “12 words” answer was not incorrect and besides, it was an attempt at humor which is certainly permitted in GQ.
Third, Handy was banned for two reasons, IMO (IANAM 
), yes, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the “bad medical advice” thing, but I’ll bet that the primary issue is that all Handy did was Google the question and post the first listed answer, regardless of relevance (and it often was not relevant). FBG (in the dozen or so posts I looked at) doesn’t do anything like that. He got one answer wrong when, (presumably) in the heat of the moment he responded without reading the rest of the thread. But his wrong answer was an honest mistake (it was relevant and sounded reasonable, even though it wasn’t right), not an ongoing Handy-esque “Let’s get my post-count up by posting responses that have nothing to do with the topic”-fest.
Thus, I feel that Otto’s complaint is waaaaay overblown and sets a terrible precident. Show me a pattern (two does not make a pattern to me), and I’ll agree. But one humorous response and two (again giving the other unlinked thread that Otto talks about) incorrect posts made in error but with disclaimers? Out of a 500+ post history? Not even close to Pitworthy, IMO.
Better to address it before it becomes a pattern, isn’t it? I pitted handy for the same thing and was much harsher because he should have known better. Maybe FBG, despite having been around for three years, doesn’t know better (a possibility, based on his low post count). Now, if he should stumble across this thread, he does. Reading a GQ thread before posting to it to see if the question’s already been answered doesn’t seem that unreasonable, especially if one doesn’t actually know the answer, especially when the thread at the time was only ten posts long.
Not like I’m losing any sleep over this. I said my piece.
Thanks Otto the anger makes more sense in context now. That thread was hilarious.
DSYoungEsq: Long thought out reply with several facts behind it.
Fat Bald Guy: Bunch of made up shit off of the top of his head.
heh.
[quoted by=Fat Bald Guy]
Depends if you rip it up before or after you sign it.
[/quote]
Agreed, pointless rant. The statement made by FBG is not false. I believe he’s saying, (and IANAPGAP *) if it’s ripped up before signing, it’s basically voided (obviously). But if it’s ripped up after signing, as noted in that thread already, it has been recorded by the court house. There for, it still stands. Funny and factual.
*I am not a pretentious grammatical asshole professional.
The question refers to a “husband” and a “wife.” A pre-nuptual agreement is entered into before the marriage. It is not logical to infer that the OP was referring to an unsigned pre-nup. Unfunny and non-factual.
Amen! This has been my biggest pet peeve since day one. If you ask a question and it’s answered in the first reply, great, problem solved. I hate when some jackass decides he knows the answer to an OP, and then immediately replies even though the correct answer has already been provided. People that post things like “I agree with X” and add nothing more are just wasting bandwidth. People that restate the already answered solution are basically saying “I knew the answer too, see how smart I am”. I don’t expect everyone to read all 60+ replies to a Pit thread, but in GQ there is quite often 1 fucking answer, who gives a shit if you knew it too. My favorite is when the second or third person to answer correctly is given credit for an answer that was provided in the first fucking reply!
Fucking ignorant retards! Don’t try to pad your post count or glorify yourself by restating an obviously correct answer. If the question has already been answered, and you have nothing of value to add, then shut the fuck up!!
I feel much better now. Thank you Otto, for providing a thread in which I could vent.
Does this mean you will stop complaining in GQ?