Posting wild speculation in GQ & citing "A friend who is usually right"

The BBQ Pit
41

[QUOTE=Revtim]
Well, I guess I’ll buck the trend and say I have no problem with type of post. We see where the poster got the info, and should realize that it has a higher potential for being wrong than other better cited posts. I’d rather see more posts with more information (that can be properly judged for accuracy) than to miss some info because someone is afraid to post something because they can find no other cite besides remembering something from conversation or perhaps not remembering where something was read.
[/QUOTE]

The way to do that is in the form of a question, or something like this: I heard such-and-such and was wondering of someone could comment on whether or not that is correct. Posting nonsense and then trying to defend it on the basis of not having access to the source is not the way to do it.

42

[QUOTE=Bookkeeper]
I have no objection to speculation in GQ (and have added my own speculation to the thread in question), as long as it is clearly identified as such and is germane to the discussion. In my own case, I do so for topics such as this, where the answer is not cut and dried and there is some debate, in the hope that someone more knowledgeable on the topic will confirm/refute/expand on the speculative idea with additional data that might clarify the issue, rather than as an attempt to truly answer the question.
[/QUOTE]

I agree - in fact I think that discussion and confirmation/debunking of peripheral issues is a valid and valuable function of GQ threads.

But yes, what should have happened is for SB to realise and acknowledge that the factoid in question was most probably a polished turd, in this case.

BTW, I still think it’s highly likely that the nugget of information in question has its ultimate origin in Niven’s Pak Protector theme - the particular detail of arthritis being a broken remnant of a process to increase moment arm in the joints, is peculiar to Niven, AFAIK. I think this is a thrice-over retelling via FOAFs that lost the ‘fictional’ tag somewhere along the way.

43

Did any of you ever consider that I myself was curious and actually just wanted to know the facts? I posted whatever information I had, gave the cite and explicitly said that it was nothing more than what I had been told. Had someone responded simply by saying I was wrong and giving the correct information, there would have been no problem. I don’t evebn know where to try and find the information for many things. It might be buried in a textbook I never knew existed.

But no, John Mace called it nonsense without actual even trying to understand what I wrote, or putting any reason why. Qadop was fine at first, but just asking for a cite does no good. I gave him a goddam cite. I didn’t claim it was correct, just that my pal was quite bright and well read.

I don’t even know if the claim is extrordinary, since I have not studied evoluitionary puberty and muscle/bone growth. It might be perfectly common knowledge among the brillaint scholars Qagdop and John Mace, whose brilliance is such that mere mortals like Smiling Bandit are despised and mocked merely for putting what limited information they had.

How DARE I try and put any information down, without first asking our dear and glorious brilliant Philosopher-Kings! Truly, my heniousness knows no boundaries. If even I dared to post any information aty all, i shoudl have prefaced it with “I am a pathetic and useless ignorant fool, and my information comes from a completely untrustworthy source, and no doubt has stewed in the shithol of brain, in which all knowledge is wasted, and if it’s not too much trouble, could the infinitely superior minds of others please tell me whether or not the following is true, and I apologize for wasting the immeasurably valuable time of far more brilliant men.” Will that suffice, or is it insufficiently humble before your majesty?

In short, fuck off. If you just want to jump on me then go to hell, you miserable pussbags. In the future, maybe I should just not btoher to post at all. It’s not like anyone actually likes me around here. I can’t actually think of anyone who ever thanked me. If my contributions are so useless, then may I humbly suggest you invite me to leave? Or perhaps, saying “I’ve heard” just isn’t clear enough for you to comprehend that I’m not sure and actually might like to know whether my information is correct or not? And that, perhaps, had responses been polite, even just saying “I’ve never heard that one despite studying X, Y, and Z” could have been more than sufficient without just declaring it nonsense without any explanation?

44

[QUOTE=Freddy the Pig]
Which leads to our next complaint . . .Hear hear. There are threads on the front page right now asking, “If we had more atomic power plants would we import less oil?” and “If I want to employ Americans, should I buy a Japanese car?” These aren’t questions with factual answers. I really wish the mods would be more aggressive in moving these. Their presence encourages people to treat GQ as just another “Post whatever you think” gab-fest.
[/QUOTE]

I think you have to differentiate between questions that have a *factual * answer, and those that have a *definitive * answer. The two examples you cite are unlikely to yield a single, universally-agreed upon answer. However, both are certainly matters where relevant data and rational analysis can yield an array of factual responses.

If the requirement for a question in GQ is that it have a single, 100%-factually-certain answer, then you’ve turned the forum into an encyclopedia.

45

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I don’t evebn know where to try and find the information for many things. It might be buried in a textbook I never knew existed…I gave him a goddam cite. I didn’t claim it was correct, just that my pal was quite bright and well read…I don’t even know if the claim is extrordinary, since I have not studied evoluitionary puberty and muscle/bone growth.
[/QUOTE]
So you don’t know anything regarding the topic beyond what some " friend who is usually right" mentioned to you, and you haven’t bothered to educate yourself on the topic, but your opinion–as self-admittedly ill-informed as it is–but it should be granted the same weight as that accorded to more educated claims? That might be an appropriate philosophy for the intellectual sewer of Great Debates or IMHO, but General Questions is a forum for factual discussion and informed speculation. If you don’t know the answer or have a reasonably credible rationale, it’s best to sit back and learn rather than spew out whatever random thought crosses through your mind. More than likely someone knowledgable will come along and contribute a worthwhile post, and then you’ll know something, or at least have a clue as to “where to try and find information” on the topic.

And if your ego can’t cope with being pointedly corrected in GQ when you display ignorance and graciously admit to your mistake, you’d best stay out and go someplace safe like MPSIMS where nobody is wrong. The GQ forum is civil, but that doesn’t mean that respondents have to glad-handle purveyors of ignornace.

Stranger

46

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Did any of you ever consider that I myself was curious and actually just wanted to know the facts? I posted whatever information I had, gave the cite and explicitly said that it was nothing more than what I had been told. Had someone responded simply by saying I was wrong and giving the correct information, there would have been no problem. I don’t evebn know where to try and find the information for many things. It might be buried in a textbook I never knew existed.

But no, John Mace called it nonsense without actual even trying to understand what I wrote, or putting any reason why. Qadop was fine at first, but just asking for a cite does no good. I gave him a goddam cite. I didn’t claim it was correct, just that my pal was quite bright and well read.

I don’t even know if the claim is extrordinary, since I have not studied evoluitionary puberty and muscle/bone growth. It might be perfectly common knowledge among the brillaint scholars Qagdop and John Mace, whose brilliance is such that mere mortals like Smiling Bandit are despised and mocked merely for putting what limited information they had.

How DARE I try and put any information down, without first asking our dear and glorious brilliant Philosopher-Kings! Truly, my heniousness knows no boundaries. If even I dared to post any information aty all, i shoudl have prefaced it with “I am a pathetic and useless ignorant fool, and my information comes from a completely untrustworthy source, and no doubt has stewed in the shithol of brain, in which all knowledge is wasted, and if it’s not too much trouble, could the infinitely superior minds of others please tell me whether or not the following is true, and I apologize for wasting the immeasurably valuable time of far more brilliant men.” Will that suffice, or is it insufficiently humble before your majesty?

In short, fuck off. If you just want to jump on me then go to hell, you miserable pussbags. In the future, maybe I should just not btoher to post at all. It’s not like anyone actually likes me around here. I can’t actually think of anyone who ever thanked me. If my contributions are so useless, then may I humbly suggest you invite me to leave? Or perhaps, saying “I’ve heard” just isn’t clear enough for you to comprehend that I’m not sure and actually might like to know whether my information is correct or not? And that, perhaps, had responses been polite, even just saying “I’ve never heard that one despite studying X, Y, and Z” could have been more than sufficient without just declaring it nonsense without any explanation?
[/QUOTE]

I have never had a problem with you before, I don’t invite you to leave. However, I do not speak for **QtM ** or John Mace.

However, your first posts wording, should have told you enough as you wrote it not to relate it as a good source but to ask if your friend was at all correct in this. It is a matter of tone. Better yet, subscribe to the thread and give it a few hours to see if someone posts an answer.

Your second post was simply jerkish. If you do not see that, maybe you should read it again. Some might consider an apology at this point, not spewing more venom. YMMV

Jim

47

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
… i shoudl have prefaced it with “I am a pathetic and useless ignorant fool, and my information comes from a completely untrustworthy source, and no doubt has stewed in the shithol of brain, in which all knowledge is wasted, and if it’s not too much trouble, could the infinitely superior minds of others please tell me whether or not the following is true, and I apologize for wasting the immeasurably valuable time of far more brilliant men.” Will that suffice, or is it insufficiently humble before your majesty?..
[/quote]

It’s not the preface (or lack of) that caused the ruckus, it’s what happened afterwards.

The responses were pretty polite, until you washed your hands of the assertion.

But having said that, I think this is an unnecessarily rough ride (see my comments above for my position on the issue of GQ in general) - it should have been sufficient for people to say that they’ve never heard your friend’s assertion, that it closely resembled something in a known work of fiction, and that it was most likely false.

48

flurb has a definite point. For a lot of questions, there is a correct answer – the one that expresses as best we know at present the truth that resolves the question asked. But it’s not necessarily the definitive answer.

Take, as an example, “Q. What is the best treatment for shingles?” The estimable Dr. Qadgop or Doc Paprika will present, factually, what is present best practice for treatment of shingles, with appropriate disclaimers about not giving medical advice.

But fakenamefornewDoper, a recently signed up member who is working for GSK or Pfizer, may have information on a marvelous new product that targets the viruses in question and which is just beginning human trials.

On some topics, like ACC, mass extinction, stellar evolution, there is no single definitive right answer, just the consensus of scientific opinion as to what that answer probably is, perhaps with a nod given to alternate theories if appropriate.

Then there’s the “fuzzy” answer. IMO, it’s legitimate to place in answer to a GQ thread something you remember a bit muzzily as having heard, read, etc., in the past, provided that you make clear how non-definitive your information is. I would much rather have one of our sharper Dopers, someone with a good BS filter in operation, post what he remembers having read some years in the past, making it clear that his answer is not the last word but information of debatable value towards it, than have a thread sit there with no answer whatsoever. I’ll do this on occasion, making very clear that I have pulled the information directly from my nether regions and do not vouch for its accuracy --even though I hit about an 80% remember-it-right scale, occasionally with error as regards a minor detail with only tangential impact on the actual answer, which was presented about right.

Along the same lines is the questionable-but-likely-reliable source. If someone wants to know the socioeconomic status of craftsmen in 17th Century Hungary, that is dependent on someone having access to the one or two studies ever that quantified the scattered surviving data in various diaries, letters, journals, local histories, etc. But someone with a guilty taste for bodice-rippers might volunteer the information that it’s described thus and so in “The Thews of the Magyar,” a historical romance novel by Ezekielle Castiron, who makes a point to research the history and social conditions of the settings for the books she writes and to get them as accurate as possible. I’d find this very useful if not absolutely definitive.

Done sparingly and with due attention to how far you can trust the results, these sorts of non-definitive answers can lend a lot towards keeping active discussion going pending someone finding and presenting the actual and absolute answer.

49

[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
So you don’t know anything regarding the topic beyond what some " friend who is usually right" mentioned to you, and you haven’t bothered to educate yourself on the topic, but your opinion–as self-admittedly ill-informed as it is–but it should be granted the same weight as that accorded to more educated claims? That might be an appropriate philosophy for the intellectual sewer of Great Debates or IMHO, but General Questions is a forum for factual discussion and informed speculation. If you don’t know the answer or have a reasonably credible rationale, it’s best to sit back and learn rather than spew out whatever random thought crosses through your mind. More than likely someone knowledgable will come along and contribute a worthwhile post, and then you’ll know something, or at least have a clue as to “where to try and find information” on the topic.

And if your ego can’t cope with being pointedly corrected in GQ when you display ignorance and graciously admit to your mistake, you’d best stay out and go someplace safe like MPSIMS where nobody is wrong. The GQ forum is civil, but that doesn’t mean that respondents have to glad-handle purveyors of ignornace.

[/QUOTE]

I know we generally frown upon “Me, too,” posts, but this post states the case so well I find it difficult to add anything to it, and I believe it would ill-serve the thread to ignore this post without comment of any kind.

So – me, too. What he said.

50

[QUOTE=What Exit?]
Your second post was simply jerkish. If you do not see that, maybe you should read it again. Some might consider an apology at this point, not spewing more venom. YMMV
[/QUOTE]

Then perhaps they should taken the advice first.

Fine, I’m a horrible man and I hate myself. My sins are as depp as the manianas trench and violate all decency of man. I have noone to call friend; I know of no one I would expect or even hope to visit me in the hospital. Should I vanish for a month, they mgiht notice but would hardly worry or care. No doubt this is due to my evil personality and total lack of anything resembling humanity. I am a horrific monster without any redeeming characteristics. No, I do not mean this as hyperbole. My very existence disgusts me, as I’m sure you all would hate me the more you knew me.

But don’t for a moment pretend that anyone was more polite to me, or ever was.

51

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
I didn’t claim it was correct, just that my pal was quite bright and well read.

[/QUOTE]

Reads a lot of Larry Niven, does he?

52

[QUOTE=Bricker]

So – me, too. What he said.
[/QUOTE]

And me as well. :smiley:
However, I have given less than ideal answers in GQ when the question is aging without a reply, kinda as a bump. Also, some questions just don’t really work as GQ questions Like the moon landing one, although there really was a GQ there, I just didn’t really see it.

53

That is probably the biggest overreaction I’ve ever seen. smiling bandit, may I humbly and sincerely suggest some kind of professional help?

54

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
Yes, hydrogen is quite easy to get, actually.
[/quote]

…

[QUOTE=smiling bandit]
About hydrogen cars, what’s the technology on that? Isn’t it pretty much understood tech and a matter of making the hydrogen tank safe. That the problem was separating the hydrogen out of water efficiently in a car engine than bonding it back?
[/quote]

This seems like more of the same. A drive-by that doesn’t answer the OP, and then a follow-up with a mildly off-topic question that Wikipedia could answer. GQ has a low content threshold for posts like the airplane-on-a-treadmill – a gedankenexperiment with a tricky or counterintuitive answer. That’s fine. But GQ also hosts serious questions like “why doesn’t a rocket burn up on its way out of the atmosphere” where an answer is expected from the folks who can answer authoritatively, from shared evidence, for an answer they believe to be factually correct.

smiling bandit’s problem seems to be an inability to discern the difference between the social “pondering” threads in GQ and the more direct factual threads. Whether this is a case of smiling bandit not “getting” the social norms or a problem with GQ is probably a topic for GD or ATMB.

55

So, where do I drop[ off this cross?

56

[QUOTE=vetbridge]
And me as well. :smiley:
However, I have given less than ideal answers in GQ when the question is aging without a reply, kinda as a bump. Also, some questions just don’t really work as GQ questions Like the moon landing one, although there really was a GQ there, I just didn’t really see it.
[/QUOTE]

Hell, I have given wrong answers in GQ before. And abjectly apologized when it was pointed out.

I don’t object to an answer given in good faith that turns out to be wrong or incomplete. I object to the offended tone by which the errant answer is defended or (in this case) disavowed. “Hey, you assholes, it’s not my fault. I was just quoting my brilliant, well-read friend! If it’s wrong, take it up with him; I got nuthin’ to do with it!” :rolleyes:

57

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Hell, I have given wrong answers in GQ before. And abjectly apologized when it was pointed out.
[/QUOTE]

Cool. And, as this is the Pit; fuckin’ cool. :slight_smile:

58

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Hell, I have given wrong answers in GQ before. And abjectly apologized when it was pointed out.

I don’t object to an answer given in good faith that turns out to be wrong or incomplete. I object to the offended tone by which the errant answer is defended or (in this case) disavowed. “Hey, you assholes, it’s not my fault. I was just quoting my brilliant, well-read friend! If it’s wrong, take it up with him; I got nuthin’ to do with it!” :rolleyes:
[/QUOTE]

Right. Rather than taking it as an opportunity to razz his friend for spreading Larry Niven’s fiction as fact, smiling bandit took it as a personal affront.

59

{Thought the better of it.}

Smiling Bandit, very little of what goes on here is actually personal, but you seem to be taking it that way, and really running with it. I would suggest that very few people hate you on the Dope; most people are completely indifferent to you (and me, and just about everyone else). If you really hate yourself that much, like PriceGuy has suggested, it might be time to look into professional help.

60

Oh yes, I need professional help. A useless venemous little monster needs only professional help into the grave. You do not redeem the irredeemable. You destroy it. But as I disapprove of suicide, I can only hope for an accident to befall me before I do too much more damage to the world.

But regardless, I humbly apologize and beg forgiveness for allowing my the perverted grotesquerie of my thoughts to . Please accept my apologies. I will consider refraining from starting or replying to threads following this day, since, although atonement or repayment is impossible for my corrupted self, I should avoid making further reponses.