Must we rename "General Questions" as "General Assertions"

[rayh]

@Contrapuntal

I suspect from a Welshman, that is considered to be brilliant argument. However, as everyone knows monkeys live underground, Cite, and are therefore out of the Giraffe’s field of vision. They also wear invisibility cloaks, and are therefore almost completely unknown to giraffes.

I don’t know, sheep don’t climb trees.

[Duke_of_Rat]

@Bricker

Apparently, the answer to the question the OP raises is: no.

Idiots get very defensive when challenged on their right to post useless garbage and speculation in lieu of factual answers. They scream loudly about how opinions should be treated with as much deference as facts. Eradicating this attitude has thus far proven impossible.

Cite?

[Ike_Witt]

Colour me surprised that www.monkeyscrotum.org is not an actually used URL.

[Ethilrist]

@rayh

I don’t know, sheep don’t climb trees.

Not a creature of the air, is the sheep…

[susan_foster]

@GawnFishin'

Nope, crushed it on the tank when he had a head on with a Hummer.

Nope - was playing basketball with a guy who had a pencil in his pocket.

Susan

[gigi]

@susan_foster

Nope - was playing basketball with a guy who had a pencil in his pocket.

DID HE TELL YOU IT WAS MY FAULT?

[Colibri]

@CalMeacham

I don’t think it’s desirable – the give-and-play is one of the things that makes this Board the joy it is.

If you’re an omnipotent omniscient being who watches this, or if you’ve waited until all the results are in, you say that #9 and #10 are all you need, and the others shouldn’t have wasted their time. But some good does come from the others, and it’s interesting to see how the answer “evolves”. And if you’re one of those less-than-perfectly-helpful posters, but you’re posting the best you know, then why shouldn’t you post? sometimes non-authoritative results without cites are the best you’re gonna get.

However, I think it is reasonable to ask for some restraint if you don’t actually have a frikkin’ clue about what the answer is. We do have loads of real experts in all kinds of fields available to answer questions in GQ. There is really no need for people to jump in within the first five minutes with all kinds of dumbass wild guesses. Let someone who may actually know something about the question have a crack at it first. If it’s been hanging around for awhile and it’s about to slide off the first page, then it’s fair game.

In biology questions, if I or someone else who has some expertise doesn’t get in there in the first 15 minutes or so, we’ll spend half the thread not answering the OP, but simply correcting erroneous assertions made by people who dozed off high school biology. It gets tiresome.

Finally, I’m all for posting humorous responses, even in GQ. Nyaah!

That’s fine, and I often do it myself. But let people get in a serious answer or two first.

[Helen_s_Eidolon]

I think funny responses are an entirely different animal from WAGs. Funny responses, in their own way, contribute something worthwhile to the thread. WAGs, unless they demonstrate some desire to seriously get at the truth or come after a long period of time with no answers, are just useless.

[Hogwash]

A wise man once said:

“If the truth shall set you free, then General Questions is but the most comfortable of minimum security prisons, the type where they take you to ballgames and stuff”.

[What_Exit]

@Colibri

@CalMeacham

Finally, I’m all for posting humorous responses, even in GQ. Nyaah!

That’s fine, and I often do it myself. But let people get in a serious answer or two first.

I thought it was actually asked of us not to make humorous replies and WAG’s until the questioned had been answered or the question was slipping of the page? I cannot locate this suggestion but I recall reading it.
What I did find: From Moderator’s Notes: On General Questions - reference sites

Try to limit the “me, too” posts. If a member has asked a question about a legal matter, for instance, there is no need for everyone who ever got a ticket to post a story. A certain amount is worthwhile to make a point (and we are a community of shared interests, after all), but too many thread live beyond their useful lives because someone wanted to share a story which is only slightly on-topic. Please exercise discretion.
…
These rules are not meant to discourage threads or posts! The SDMB and this forum in particular rely on a constant stream of high-quality questions, accurate answers and witty wisecracks to stay alive. In particular, if you have a good joke that fits in an existing thread, go right ahead and post it.

Jim

[Mtgman]

If it weren’t for the smart asses and half-asses and wild-ass guesses many threads would sink off the first page long before the “expert” on the topic ever arrived. I think less guestions would be answered. I’m sure many of our “experts” are dilligent about checking several pages back, but some aren’t.

Enjoy,
Steven

[CalMeacham]

:
Finally, I’m all for posting humorous responses, even in GQ. Nyaah!

That’s fine, and I often do it myself. But let people get in a serious answer or two first.

And take a chance that someone else will beat me with the same bon mot? Not a chance! What’s so sacred about getting the straight-faced answer in first?

[GawnFishin]

@dropzone

Wouldn’t that be “crushed it on the chin when he had a head on with a Hummer?”

:rolleyes:

I did include a link to a picture.

[Colibri]

@CalMeacham

And take a chance that someone else will beat me with the same bon mot? Not a chance! What’s so sacred about getting the straight-faced answer in first?

Well, OK, but only if it’s really a good - and original - one. None of that “1920s-style Death-Rays” shit.

[Colibri]

@Mtgman

If it weren’t for the smart asses and half-asses and wild-ass guesses many threads would sink off the first page long before the “expert” on the topic ever arrived. I think less guestions would be answered. I’m sure many of our “experts” are dilligent about checking several pages back, but some aren’t.

Nah, that shit mostly just wastes everyone’s time. At the moment, the last question in GQ was last posted to almost four hours ago. I think people can safely give them a couple of hours before posting WAGs. Like I said before, it’s OK if it’s going to slide off the front page.

[Random]

Sometimes “no” is an appropriate answer.

For example, the OP’s question or assertion may be so ludicrous that no authority has ever considered the question. Can you cite a medical study that establishes that Germans heal faster than Spaniards?

Similarly, some questions call for simple “no” answers, because you’re essentially being asked to prove a negative. For example: Is there a U.S. law that prohibits a person from owning a kangaroo? If the answer is “Yes”, you can cite the law. If it’s no, what cite can be provided?

[Mtgman]

Heh, “guestions.” I think I like that particular typo.

Enjoy,
Steven

[Sal_Ammoniac]

I also don’t think that the distinction between questions wanting factual answers and questions wanting opinions is so cut and dried. There’s a bit of a continuum between GQ and IMHO, and there are things that straddle the line. Half the time the answer sought is not just a fact or a set of facts, but a bit of interpretation as well – opinion, in other words.

Not to say that there aren’t plenty of garbagey answers in GQ, but I tend to agree with Cal Meacham – allow some give-and-take, and even a certain amount of wrongheadedness – but pit the worst offenders.

[Ethilrist]

@What Exit?

I thought it was actually asked of us not to make humorous replies and WAG’s until the questioned had been answered or the question was slipping of the page? I cannot locate this suggestion but I recall reading it.

Jim

I just checked the guidelines & etiquette and didn’t see anything on this subject. However, the way I have seen it enforced is that, depending on a large number of variables (ID of OP, the moderator, the topic, the thread title, previous responses, time of day (no, really!), presence of ancient astronauts), posting a humorous response in GQ varies in acceptability from perfectly fine to risking a Moderator Warning. Regardless of whether or not the original question had been answered. YMMV.

[The_Hamster_King]

Gabonese tree monkeys have three testicles? Sweet!