Subtle whooshing in GQ is a dickish thing to do

The BBQ Pit
21

It was kinda dickish, but not the kind of incident that we automatically tend to warn about, or even to stress over. It WAS a pretty subtle whoosh–and, that’s the problem. I"d guess that 75%+ of the people who read that, didn’t take it as anything but gospel. You can remark all you want about how it keeps readers on their toes, but readers don’t come into GQ expecting to be whooshed–at least, not subtly.

So, yeah. friedo isn’t a dick, but his post, in that one case, would have been better posted without the whoosh, or certainly at a later time.

22

[QUOTE=Musicat]
I think the complaint tells us a lot about the complainer. Tell us, Rhythmdvl, did you get taken in by the semi-scientific language, then feel embarrassed to find out later that you believed it? Eh?

If so, no big deal. I think I know enough about wind turbines that my first reaction was, “Unh…don’t think so…oh, that’s a whoosh, right?” but if you hadn’t been as savvy as I turned out to be, you would have been redfaced when you found out. Isn’t that the real reason behind this pitting? Your ignorance?
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’m not the OP but I did take it literally at first. Oh sure, I went back and looked again a bit later and thought that it seemed a bit weird. Then someone mentioned a whoosh and I got the joke. In my case, it certainly was my ignorance of wind turbines (and basic physics) that caused the problem - but I like to learn about things and that can be difficult when I can’t be sure people are making good faith attempts to answer the question.

23

[QUOTE=Musicat]
So you won’t get sucked into the vortex as fast the next time?
[/QUOTE]

…there’s a vortex? :eek:

[looks around nervously]

24

There’s nothing wrong with a little joking in GQ (of course, after the questions has been answered), but facetious answers can present a problem.

  1. The answers to some questions may be pretty esoteric, and it’s difficult for someone not familiar with the field to sort out just which unlikely-sounding information is true, and which is intended as a whoosh.

  2. There are plenty of posters who post really really stupid answers because they think they are correct, not because they are trying to be funny. Sorting out honestly-stupid from pretend-stupid can be quite difficult.

So in general I think that if you are going to make a joke, be pretty obvious that you do mean it as a joke, either by phrasing or by using a smiley.

The default mode in GQ should be to post correct information. People who challenge false information shouldn’t need to worry whether they are being whooshed or not. So if you are deliberately posting wrong information, be clear that you are doing so as a joke. As has been said, we have plenty of other forums where you can joke around as much as you want.

25

[QUOTE=Colibri]
So in general I think that if you are going to make a joke, be pretty obvious that you do mean it as a joke, either by phrasing or by using a smiley…
[/QUOTE]
friedo probably thought that dniw was pretty obvious phrasing to show that his part (B) was a joke.

I’ll agree that there are other times posters have joked inappropriately in GQ (and I’m sure I’m one of them), but, OHMI, this particular tsop shouldn’t have spawned a pitting.

26

I was foiled by family obligations when I had a pretty lengthy post almost ready to submit about this.

I understand the rules about GQ, but I wasn’t offended that I had been had. In fact, I thought it was pretty funny, and it didn’t stop me from asking even more questions about something that I literally know nothing about.

The whoosh that went over my head, it’s funny, because when I read Friedo’s reply, I instantly started thinking about how cars can use drag behind other cars in racing, and I figured (given my ignorance) that a similar effect could possibly be created in windfarms if turbines are placed very close together (given the size of their fanblades and all) that would detrimentally affect their overall performance.

Anyway, I appreciate the OP’s sincerity and desire to keep GQ factual, as it generally should be and is.

I get annoyed when mods come down on people in that forum for jokes that are either begging to be told or are after-the-fact one-offs when the question has been obviously answered. No cite for my claims, just a general feeling.

In my case, my question wasn’t in all honesty answered by Friedo, but I didn’t mind the whoosh. I understand that collectively we try to keep GQ “clean” in terms of factual information, but without the random infusion of humor, I would have never subscribed to this message board in the first place.

IMO, no harm, no foul…I’m a noob that got caught in the crosswinds, as it were.

In my short time here I honestly can say that some people need to get thicker skin, and this applies as a general observation across almost all of the forums, not necessarily this particular instance. Especially in GD, I might add.

It’s all good as far as I am concerned. Now I’m off to learn more about windpower and it’s vortex-creating logistical issues!

:slight_smile:

27

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
…but, OHMI, this particular tsop shouldn’t have spawned a pitting.
[/QUOTE]

“tsop” —is that a whoosh? :stuck_out_tongue:

28

I’m sorry, but I’m starting to wonder if I’m being whooshed or not.

Some people (more than one!) actually thought dniw was a real word! Does that look like any other English word you’ve ever seen? How did you think it might be pronounced?

Or do I just have some special skill for immediately recognizing a backwards word when I see it?

29

[QUOTE=MrSquishy]
I’m sorry, but I’m starting to wonder if I’m being whooshed or not.

Some people (more than one!) actually thought dniw was a real word! Does that look like any other English word you’ve ever seen? How did you think it might be pronounced?

Or do I just have some special skill for immediately recognizing a backwards word when I see it?
[/QUOTE]

On a quick read, I easily assumed it was some kind of acronym for people “in the know” about the wind-bearing industry that I did not know. Forget it, who cares, I got whooshed. It wasn’t the first time nor will it be the last.

I don’t get the outrage, unless you’re going to go on record as calling me stupid.

30

Well, if nothing else, that’s the first time I’ve ever seen somebody with 1,500+ posts describe themselves as a boon. Err, noob. :wink:

31

For the record, no matter how serious it sounds, if you see a post by I. Lirpa on April First, it’s probably a whoosh.

32

[QUOTE=Santo Rugger]
Well, if nothing else, that’s the first time I’ve ever seen somebody with 1,500+ posts describe themselves as a boon. Err, noob. :wink:
[/QUOTE]

I just type fast!

33

I’ve done way worse than “dniw” in GQ, to my regret.

34

[QUOTE=MrSquishy]
I’m sorry, but I’m starting to wonder if I’m being whooshed or not.

Some people (more than one!) actually thought dniw was a real word! Does that look like any other English word you’ve ever seen? How did you think it might be pronounced?

[/QUOTE]

Honestly, I didn’t think it was an actual word, so much as an internet acronym – dnftt, rofl, fwiw, etc. – whose meaning I was unfamiliar with. “rofl” clearly has a meaning as well as a pronunciation, even if it isn’t a word (yet… bwhahaha).

35

I honestly didn’t mean to express outrage; I hope you accept my sincerity in that. This was a tossup between ATMB and the Pit, but since I was (mildly) decrying a type of post, I thought it more appropriate to go here. This isn’t That Big a Deal.

I like jokes in GQ, and this is not meant as a complaint against them. Nor, in essence, does it have anything to do with placement (before or after the question has been answered). I’m not trying to dictate the direction/tenor of this thread—comment as you will—I’m just trying to note that the pique stems from the apparent dilution of GQ (making it difficult to cull fact from fancy) and the out of place, neener-neener nature (try saying that out loud…it’s fun) of intentionally whooshing someone in GQ.

It happens not infrequently, and the dniw-post (and possibly withdrawal from the outage) is only what prompted this. It may or may not be the best example. But since there are those who honestly took it as an acronym/jargon/unknown word, and were possibly caught unawares that it was humorous in nature, illustrates the unfortunate side effect of its subtleness. That it was apparent after being asked is a bit beside the point – if it wasn’t questioned, then the “fact” may have sat in GQ, catching people who rely on otherwise good information. That you were above it all and “got” it instantly is also a bit irrelevant, unless you mean to say that it is not possible to fool you in any subject with misinformation.

I don’t believe, however, that there was any malicious intent to fool or trick anyone in the reply – that does happen, but I don’t believe this is an instance of it. This is one reason why I didn’t wish to refer to a particular post. An extreme example would be telling a Linux newbie to type “rm -rf /” (DO NOT RUN THAT COMMAND—IT DELETES EVERYTHING), something I don’t think has ever happened here. However, humorous or not it is a high-order dickish thing to do (and would be direct, personally pit-worthy).

Lastly, this is an admittedly vague area. How is it that there’s no chance of someone taking the Don Quixote post seriously, but there is with dniw? While the difference is obvious, I’m at a loss to define why.

36

dniw is somewhat subtle. What I liked was that the dniw joke explains itself with its own technobabble. Don Quixote is not subtle. Don Quixote wouldn’t be subtle even if he removed the gigantic flashing neon sign that says “I’m a joke! Ho! Ho! Ho!”*

That’s the difference.

If the PTB would upgrade to the newest version of vBulletin, we’d be able to use the whoosh tags. They’re great, you just hit Alt-F4 and it highlights the satire. They’re like anti-spoiler tags. Of course, this takes a bit of cooperation on the part of the woosher, marking the jokes and all.

*In Cervantes’ notes for Don Quixote, published posthumously by his son, we learn that in an earlier draft our hero made a side trip to Flanders and vandalized Christmas decorations (This was after Christmas) which he thought were actually demons on rooftops, waiting to pounce on unsuspecting Dutchmen. They built a monument, even. Sancho Panza is on the right.

37

[QUOTE=Tenebras]

If the PTB would upgrade to the newest version of vBulletin, we’d be able to use the whoosh tags. They’re great, you just hit Alt-F4 and it highlights the satire. They’re like anti-spoiler tags. Of course, this takes a bit of cooperation on the part of the woosher, marking the jokes and all.

[/QUOTE]

I see what you did there.

38

[QUOTE=Rhythmdvl]
I honestly didn’t mean to express outrage; I hope you accept my sincerity in that. This was a tossup between ATMB and the Pit, but since I was (mildly) decrying a type of post, I thought it more appropriate to go here. This isn’t That Big a Deal.

I like jokes in GQ, and this is not meant as a complaint against them. Nor, in essence, does it have anything to do with placement (before or after the question has been answered). I’m not trying to dictate the direction/tenor of this thread—comment as you will—I’m just trying to note that the pique stems from the apparent dilution of GQ (making it difficult to cull fact from fancy) and the out of place, neener-neener nature (try saying that out loud…it’s fun) of intentionally whooshing someone in GQ.

It happens not infrequently, and the dniw-post (and possibly withdrawal from the outage) is only what prompted this. It may or may not be the best example. But since there are those who honestly took it as an acronym/jargon/unknown word, and were possibly caught unawares that it was humorous in nature, illustrates the unfortunate side effect of its subtleness. That it was apparent after being asked is a bit beside the point – if it wasn’t questioned, then the “fact” may have sat in GQ, catching people who rely on otherwise good information. That you were above it all and “got” it instantly is also a bit irrelevant, unless you mean to say that it is not possible to fool you in any subject with misinformation.

I don’t believe, however, that there was any malicious intent to fool or trick anyone in the reply – that does happen, but I don’t believe this is an instance of it. This is one reason why I didn’t wish to refer to a particular post. An extreme example would be telling a Linux newbie to type “rm -rf /” (DO NOT RUN THAT COMMAND—IT DELETES EVERYTHING), something I don’t think has ever happened here. However, humorous or not it is a high-order dickish thing to do (and would be direct, personally pit-worthy).

Lastly, this is an admittedly vague area. How is it that there’s no chance of someone taking the Don Quixote post seriously, but there is with dniw? While the difference is obvious, I’m at a loss to define why.
[/QUOTE]

I understand what you are saying and appreciate the effort, as I was the whooshed party (and I bought into the “dniw” acronym as somehow meaningful) but I am really not offended by it.

But I appreciate the thrust of your OP and generally agree. GQ is supposed to be a place of frank question and answer: allowing for humorous yet obscure and inaccurate responses defiles the “purity” that is supposed to be GQ.

Again, I was in no way offended, but that isn’t really the point, is it?

39

Really? Really?

Fuck, that’s actually kind of depressing.

40

[QUOTE=neutron star]
Really? Really?

Fuck, that’s actually kind of depressing.
[/QUOTE]
Hey, when I reading quickly at work my brain is just in “input mode”
It doesn’t do “Processing Mode” until I take my lunch break.

I got that it was a whoosh while reading the thread, but I wouldn’t have without the posts pointing it out.

I didn’t get the actual joke until I read this thread.

I can’t have been the only one.