Why, certainly. Hence, my “at some point”.
Darnit, I glossed over that “and discussed” phrase in your answer. From the FAQ :
Bolding added.
I don’t see the phrase “and discussed” there. Also, I’d like to add a clarification to my post. When I said “nothing close to resembling a ‘solid’ answer”, I was being facetious to point out that “solid” answer is a nebulous, undefined term you … introduced. I strive to make any post of mine in GQ be at least tangentially related to the issue at hand. I regard this as a personal challenge. If I fall short, I pick myself up, dust myself off and climb back on that, back on that … damn, I lost the metaphor.
Anyway, my question regarding your slight addendum to the FAQ is :
“Who are you, again?”
*I yam who I yam. *
I wouldn’t mind seeing less zombie jokes – in every forum. If only because they’re really overdone and played out. I’m not asking for a rule against it, just saying they’re stupid.
I’d call them brain-dead.
For those linking back to my request from 2000freaken7, my point was not to ban “joke” but to ban “No more “whooshes” or deliberately wrong answers in GQ.”
To illustrate:
Q posed in OP.1.What are safe chicken handling procedures for my kitchen?
replies:
2. Why do you want your kitchen to handle a chicken?
-
Why did the chicken cross the kitchen?
-
Chicken is safe when cooked rare. For best safety, leave it out, overnight in a warm place.
-
Here’s a great link, note that they recommend
Clean: Wash hands and surfaces often.
Separate: Separate raw meats and poultry from other foods.
Cook: Cook all poultry to an internal temperature of 165 °F (73.9 °C).
Chill: Refrigerate promptly
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/ad74bb8d-1dab-49c1-b05e-390a74ba7471/Chicken_from_Farm_to_Table.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
Hi Opal! -
Umm, poster 4, I am pretty sure your answer is wrong and unsafe.
-
Ha! Whoosh!
Now, I dont care for posts 2&3 they add nothing and the humor is poor. But I never suggested those get banned.
Post #4 with deliberately wrong and even dangerous information, especially presented in a non-joking manner is what I wanted to ban. I still do.
Post #5 is great, even with the bad joke and incorrect meme at the end.
Can anyone defend post 4?
Yeah, there’s no real difference between 4 and the other jokes.
A whoosh is just a joke that someone has told, not expecting it to be taken seriously. It’s only aq whoosh if someone fails to get it.
Yeah, DrDeth seems to have this idea that whooshs are somehow intentional – they’re not.
I’d say I saw what you did there except that something ate my eyeballs.
Personally I like jokes, provided they are funny. Perhaps somebody (not DrDeth) should launch a “GQ Humor Feedback” thread in the pit. Assemble the last 10 jokes in GQ made by silenus, Vinyl Turnip and jimbuff314 and see how they match up. One point if funny, negative one if bad. Two points if funny within the first 5 posts, -10 otherwise in the first 5 posts. (Yes, the poster is probably breaking the rules regardless- that’s what makes it edgy.) Also, -10 for brain-melts.
I’d mention elucidator, but I see fewer of his wisecracks in GQ.
Also, you are forgiven for exactly one bad joke or one brain-melt provided you do not defend it. But, hey, you might change people’s minds. (Snort).
In principle, I think we all agree that we’d prefer NOT to have false information (especially info that’s potentially hazardous) in GQ (well, OK, anywhere, for that matter.) However, in practice, I don’t see how we can disallow it or monitor it. People often give wrong information, “my father told me” or “I read somewhere” kind of stuff, people who honestly have wrong information in their heads and pass it on; typically, such errors are corrected by someone else later in the thread.
I don’t see how we can police that, I think that’s the sort of thing that we rely on posters to correct. This means that people need to read a whole thread, not just read until they find the first answer. But that’s always been the case.
It’s less annoying if the deliberately false answer is clearly a joke, or done with a winky-smiley or something. On t’other hand, it’s kinda crude to have to say: “This is a joke.” In the present situation and in most such “whoosh” situations, I suspect that the poster thought it was Obviously (capital O) a joke. The “whoosh” comes into play because someone else didn’t catch the Obvious. Again, I don’t see how we can monitor that sort of thing.
Yes, I agree, it would be difficult. The only way, as you said would be for “that’s the sort of thing that we rely on posters to correct”. So, it would be fine for a poster to say:
“6. Umm, poster 4, I am pretty sure your answer is wrong and unsafe. (see Post 5)” ?
And if poster 4 came back with:
7. Ha!Ha! Whoosh!
That should be reported, yes?
No, what’s to report? There’s no jerkishness in play, just someone missing an Obvious joke.
If the OP actually asked about safe poultry handling techniques, it can be assumed they dont know. Thus giving them false, misleading and extremely dangerous info is indeed being a jerk as they wont know it’s supposed to be a joke.
Unless the poster who’d you be reporting simply made a poor joke. They didn’t do anything wrong, except make a joke that fell flat.You’d report them if they were making a deliberately misleading joke, because that’d be jerkish. If it accidentally mislead someone, there’s nothing to report.
A “woosh” isn’t meant to imply that the joke was subtle on purpose. It means the person who was wooshed didn’t get the joke. You post “woosh” not to say “gotcha” but to let the reader know they missed something. They could have missed the joke because they read it wrong or because the joker made a dumb joke, but it wasn’t done on purpose to mislead.
I made a joke in GQ just Once. Once, and its the only warning I have ever gotten. A Warning for the first time.
I’ve heard of lousy jokes, but damn.
Sounds like a real arrow to the knee. Was the punchline as subtle as your GQ joke count?
And, the warning was for making a political jab in GQ, not for joking.
I love this place.