Incidentally, that might have been better as a Note if he meant it as a joke. Still- deserving of Moderation, yes.
The prohibition against political jabs in GQ is long standing and is right there in the sticky at the top of the forum. It’s always been moderated strongly.
Well, yes and no. It can also be assumed they know there’s some thing to be asking about, implying they know that there are unsafe techniques (like handling raw poultry) and so would recognize the “joke.”
No kidding. My only Warning was for the same thing.
Colibri is so mean that he once Warned a man in Reno just for snoring.
Something so trivial is rarely if ever moderated, so there would be little point in reporting it.
Political jabs often take the form of jokes. But they’re jokes that are only funny if you’re on the right side of them.
Not at all.
If I were to live in America, I’d probably would not support the Republicans. But I’d still laugh at Bob Hope’s humour.
So would I, and I did. But back then was a time when the two sides weren’t as rancorous as they are today.
Bob Hope didn’t post in GQ very often. Nor has Johnny Carson posted much there.
Occasionally, I’ll read a funny political jab in GQ. It doesn’t happen often. I’ve read plenty of clunkers though. I’m guessing Colibri was speaking of political humor in general, but only of the sort typically displayed in GQ. If not, well that’s my take anyway.
And if they did so now, that would be a zombie thread.
Let’s say political jokes are a lot funnier if they are directed at the other side. The point of prohibiting political jabs (and religious jabs, etc) of course is to prevent retaliation by the other side, and hence derailing the thread.
Or the left side, depending on the joke. 
I agree - there’s a difference between aside jokes vs a deliberately wrong answer to a factual GQ question.
Biggest trouble is: how do you gauge intent? How do you determine whether someone is just wrong, or if they think it’s funny to post incorrect answers? - the “Haha - Whoosh!” thing would be an indicator, but I imagine it doesn’t actually play out that way very often.
Pretty nearly every “Is this food safe to eat?” thread I have ever seen on this board contains at least one instance of the wrong answer, but how do we tell if they are sincerely wrong?
Since DrDeth used “safe poultry handling techniques” as his example, I for one would have a difficult time believing in someone being legitimately unaware. Any cookbook I have ever seen in recent years covers this in particular very well. Not saying someone couldn’t still be ignorant of it - betting against ignorance is pretty much the exact opposite of a sure thing .
As far as the sincerity of wrong information being posted in a “Is this food safe to eat?” thread, I don’t think it’s enough of an issue to worry about, really. Other posters will soon correct the misinformation and the sincerity issue is best handled by the moderators. I don’t think anyone’s trying to poison people through posting on a message board, nor at all likely to succeed if so.
I hate myself for saying this, but it’s actually a bad example; the policy on safe handling of poultry has changed over the years.
Where once the public was advised to rinse, rinse, rinse all raw poultry under running water before use, now the advice is NOT to wash raw poultry, as all it does is potentially spread filth to your kitchen sink and everywhere else in the vicinity. It’s the exact opposite of what was held to be true for time out of mind.
OMG I’m poisoned!
No, just kidding.
Let’s see, what was the OP again? Oh yeah, jokes in GQ.
I agree - bad form. No should do. Ta.
I’m fairly sure we could cook up another hypothetical where moderation would be appropriate (for example, someone enquiring about how recommended dosages are calculated for painkillers, and someone else responding that it’s actually quite safe to take seven times the recommended dose, or someone advising that a beach umbrella is an effective substitute for a parachute), but I imagine those things would just be moderated on a case by case basis.
The more numerous and specific the rules are made, the less effective they become at maintaining order, as the cracks between the rules become more clearly defined.