# Technical Accuracy, the Spirit of the OP and Fighting the Hypothetical **URL:** \ **Category:** In My Humble Opinion\ **Created:** [February 8, 2018, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458 "2018-02-08T18:01:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/21 "2018-02-08T22:37:57Z")
It doesn’t always happen the way the OP is saying. I recently started a thread in GD asking about Britain’s NHS and asked that the discussion stay focused on UK 'dopers and what their thoughts on the system were. Sure, there were a few attempts at derailment, as there always are on this board where everything seemingly has to be put in a US context, but for the most part people stayed focused and there were a ton of great (IMHO) responses as UK 'dopers got the chance to actually discuss their system from their perspective. I thought it was a great thread…I got to learn a lot about their system as seen through their eyes and no one took the bait of the few posters who wanted the thread to be about something else. You can have a good posting experience here without all the pedantic nitpickery if you have a good OP with a clear idea of what you want to talk about and you stay focused. My own problem is that I often get sidetracked myself, either with stuff I’m more interested in or just taking the bait and going off on a tangent. I’m pretty responsive though when posters or the OP tells me to chill out and either start my own thread or stay on topic. ---
**Author:** ![Scumpup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ce73a5/32.png) [@Scumpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scumpup)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/22 "2018-02-08T22:58:16Z")
> [@Colibri](#): > > No it hasn’t. I rest my case. ---
**Author:** ![Wheelz](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wheelz/32/5718_2.png) [@Wheelz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wheelz)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/23 "2018-02-08T23:40:53Z")
This is pretty much why I usually stick to Cafe Society, MPSIMS, or IMHO. Not that these fora are immune to the type of behavior the OP describes, but they are somewhat less susceptible. Once in a while I’ll stick my nose into Great Debates or Elections, and if I can make the first page or two, I might add a post that I think could be relevant to the topic. I usually just say what I have to say and get out. Invariably, my post gets ignored while a handful of posters dominate the thread with endless bickering, ad hominem attacks, absurd extremes, and lawyering over semantics. ([Here’s an example](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=844791&page=15).) I guess there’s nothing inherently wrong with this, if it’s what people choose to do on this board. But, hell, I don’t want to read, much less participate in, 15 pages about\* anything\*. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 8, 2018, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/24 "2018-02-08T23:58:24Z")
> [@Atomic\_Alex](#): > > Personally for myself Your sentence starts with personally, so of course it’s for yourself. What the hell is wrong with you!!! ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/25 "2018-02-09T00:09:24Z")
> [@Atomic\_Alex](#): > > And absolutely guaranteed someone will post a reply before they’ve read the entire scenario of the OP or failed to comprehend it That reminds me of a recent thread. [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=848216](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=848216) And even after requesting that I’m looking for serious replies more than once, I got a majority of goofy replies, hardly hilarious. That there was some passive-aggressiveness with that did cross my mind. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/26 "2018-02-09T00:16:05Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > Your sentence starts with personally, so of course it’s for yourself. > > What the hell is wrong with you!!! He has Yogi Berra disease. The future ain’t like it used to be. ---
**Author:** ![swampspruce](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/swampspruce/32/261_2.png) [@swampspruce](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/swampspruce)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/27 "2018-02-09T15:25:12Z")
> [@Darren\_Garrison](#): > > To be clear, do you mean food for the type of fish commonly known as “gold fish”, or some sort of fish food that is made out of gold? No, he meant fish food that is gold in colour. Geez.:smack:😛 ---
**Author:** ![kopek](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kopek/32/337_2.png) [@kopek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kopek)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 3:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/28 "2018-02-09T15:38:31Z")
> [@Atomic\_Alex](#): > > A recent thread asked why lurkers no longer post _(and it was in itself a good example of why)_ and its been something I’ve been thinking about. Personally for myself a large extent of the reason why I no longer post much is that starting and participating in threads is no longer fun and interesting because too many people seem to approach it with a poor attitude, not to exchange ideas and challenge opinions but seemingly to ‘win’ the thread or drag it off onto another subject they would prefer to talk about, usually something that’s already been rehashed a thousand times before elsewhere. I fall just about the opposite side of the spectrum from you; I lurked for ages before posting at all. I 90% agree with what you say but --------- I disagree that its worse now than before. For the longest time I was nothing but a reader here and even when I started posting I was pretty light-weight in terms of numbers. My reason was that almost every thread turned into some form of “Battle-Bots” with a usual gang of suspects fighting it out in one line posts and clear snark for snarks sake. Instead of “Trump” we had at least one “cite?” demand in almost every thread including some of the MPSIMS ones. Is it better now? I don’t know that I would say that either; just different. And that different has me throwing in my two cents at a heavier rate. It very well could just be me and how my brain works but I find the repeated themes of today easier to ignore than the ones of the past. ---
**Author:** ![somepumpkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/7feea3/32.png) [@somepumpkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/somepumpkin)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/29 "2018-02-09T16:03:45Z")
(In agreement with the OP) The Straight Dope; “_There’s no hair so fine that we can’t split it !_” ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/30 "2018-02-09T16:36:50Z")
> [@Scumpup](#): > > I rest my case. OK, we’ll recess for lunch, then return for closing arguments at 1 pm EST. ---
**Author:** ![Jasmine](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jasmine/32/2964_2.png) [@Jasmine](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jasmine)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/31 "2018-02-09T17:06:11Z")
Atomic Alex, I think you’re being overly dramatic. Most of the threads I’ve followed since I’ve been back seem to go quite well. Sure, any and all of the things you have mentioned will happen here and there from time to time, but this site is not the treacherous, hostile minefield you make it out to be. Also, the simplest approach that works is always the best. The more complex and verbose your initial post is, the greater the likelihood that your fears will become a reality. ---
**Author:** ![gnoitall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/bb73d2/32.png) [@gnoitall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gnoitall)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/32 "2018-02-09T17:16:45Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > That reminds me of a recent thread. > > [https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=848216](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=848216) > > And even after requesting that I’m looking for serious replies more than once, I got a majority of goofy replies, hardly hilarious. That there was some passive-aggressiveness with that did cross my mind. Well, given the hypothetical, it was obvious to everyone but you that you were joking. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/33 "2018-02-09T17:24:55Z")
> [@gnoitall](#): > > Well, given the hypothetical, it was obvious to everyone but you that you were joking. If you say so. But I sure went through a lot of detail and rules for a joke, didn’t I? Even if you’re correct, I responded to a “joke” post and in post 5 I clarified that I am looking for serious responses. Again in post 11 and once again in post 27. Also, I posted here what reminds me of that thread is this: > [@Atomic\_Alex](#): > > And absolutely guaranteed someone will post a reply before they’ve read the entire scenario of the OP or failed to comprehend it ---
**Author:** ![Darren\_Garrison](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/darren_garrison/32/92_2.png) [@Darren\_Garrison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Darren_Garrison)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 5:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/34 "2018-02-09T17:31:17Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > Most of the threads I’ve followed since I’ve been back seem to go quite well. In the spirit of thread derailing in a thread that complains about thread derailing, what’s up with that 16 year gap? How did you even keep track of the password that long? ---
**Author:** ![Misnomer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/misnomer/32/14897_2.png) [@Misnomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Misnomer)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/35 "2018-02-09T17:35:08Z")
> [@Jasmine](#): > > this site is not the treacherous, hostile minefield you make it out to be. Yes it is. (hey, it worked for **Colibri** … ;)) ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/36 "2018-02-09T17:37:31Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > If you say so. But I sure went through a lot of detail and rules for a joke, didn’t I? Even if you’re correct, I responded to a “joke” post and in post 5 I clarified that I am looking for serious responses. Again in post 11 and once again in post 27. > > Also, I posted here what reminds me of that thread is this: To be fair, one of the stipulations of your hypothetical was that you were on a time limit. If you put someone on a time limit, then they may not fully read or comprehend the OP, much less read down the thread for clarification. It did not appear to be a “serious” OP, as there are not beings with that power, and you never did actually answer any of the questions posed, even the ones that were seriously asked according to the rules. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/37 "2018-02-09T18:02:21Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > To be fair, one of the stipulations of your hypothetical was that you were on a time limit. I am being fair. The time limit was to think about what three yes or no questions you would ask. Of course the time limit did not include reading the OP and understanding what was being asked. > [@](#): > > If you put someone on a time limit, then they may not fully read or comprehend the OP, much less read down the thread for clarification. I disagree. The third sentence in the OP was _“This being gives you five minutes to ask three yes or no questions.”_ IME, people don’t read those sort of hypotheticals and start looking at the clock at that point. They do so after finishing reading the entire scenario. > [@](#): > > It did not appear to be a “serious” OP, as there are not beings with that power, I again disagree. Whether or not beings exist with that power isn’t the point. I made it clear several times that I was looking for what people would really ask, not to have an opportunity to post “hilarious” responses. > [@](#): > > and you never did actually answer any of the questions posed, even the ones that were seriously asked according to the rules. The point wasn’t to have the being answer the questions; it was to share what we really want to know. If you thought you were going to actually get answers, I understand, but I don’t understand those that kept replying with stupid responses when an OP makes it clear he’s asking for serious ones, or thinking that the time limit starts when one starts reading the OP or not understand what a yes or no question is. I think that thread is a good example of the part of the OP in this thread that I quoted. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/38 "2018-02-09T18:34:39Z")
> [@x-ray\_vision](#): > > I am being fair. The time limit was to think about what three yes or no questions you would ask. Of course the time limit did not include reading the OP and understanding what was being asked. > I disagree. The third sentence in the OP was _“This being gives you five minutes to ask three yes or no questions.”_ IME, people don’t read those sort of hypotheticals and start looking at the clock at that point. They do so after finishing reading the entire scenario. I did take it as having 5 minutes from the time that you read that you had 5 minutes. Maybe I am not most people, and maybe most people wouldn’t have done it that way, but there isn’t much point in a time limit if you are not expecting people to be under pressure. You are also saying that they should have gone ahead and read through the thread, to pick up your clarifications or reminders in posts you made. IME, the entire point of putting in a time limit is to put people under pressure, to not spend lots of time contemplating and researching. Without a time limit, I would have re-read the OP, thought about it some, typed up a response, checked it, re-read the OP, made a few changes to my response a bit. I would have given a more thorough, complete, and useful response. I assumed the reason for the time limit was specifically to rush people, to keep them from spending so much time thinking about it. I can think of no other reason for a time limit than that, actually. > [@](#): > > I again disagree. Whether or not beings exist with that power isn’t the point. I made it clear several times that I was looking for what people would really ask, not to have an opportunity to post “hilarious” responses. There were some that were more serious than others, but that doesn’t mean that those are not the questions that those posters would have asked. I was literally looking for my car keys not 15 minutes before I saw your post, and had not yet found them. It was a very important and pertinent question to me. My first 2 questions were useful and profound, if incorrect in understanding the rules. I really couldn’t think of a third profound question in the time limit given, but I did still need to know where my keys had gotten off to. It would be quite likely that in that scenario, a mundane, but practical question would be of some use. > [@](#): > > The point wasn’t to have the being answer the questions; it was to share what we really want to know. If you thought you were going to actually get answers, I understand, but I don’t understand those that kept replying with stupid responses when an OP makes it clear he’s asking for serious ones, or thinking that the time limit starts when one starts reading the OP or not understand what a yes or no question is. I think that thread is a good example of the part of the OP in this thread that I quoted. And you got that. In spite of some questions that were less than serious, and some questions that did not take the time to fully read and comprehend the OP, there were quite a number of people that did give the type of questions you were looking for. You really didn’t respond to any of them, but only to the questions that you were not looking for. I don’t see why one would _not_ think that the time limit begins when they are reading an OP about thinking about stuff. Anything else would be cheating, as soon as you are asked a question, you start thinking about it. The entire point of putting in a time limit is to keep people from overthinking it. If you wanted people to take lots of time to come up with profound questions, then you should have made a longer time limit, or none at all. ---
**Author:** ![x-ray\_vision](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/x-ray_vision/32/351_2.png) [@x-ray\_vision](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/x-ray_vision)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/39 "2018-02-09T19:14:54Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > but there isn’t much point in a time limit if you are not expecting people to be under pressure. I know. > [@](#): > > You are also saying that they should have gone ahead and read through the thread, to pick up your clarifications or reminders in posts you made. Not exactly, but close. I made more relevant points, though. > [@](#): > > IME, the entire point of putting in a time limit is to put people under pressure, to not spend lots of time contemplating and researching. Can you repeat that, please? It’s not sinking in. > [@](#): > > I assumed the reason for the time limit was specifically to rush people, to keep them from spending so much time thinking about it. I can think of no other reason for a time limit than that, actually. That was fast. Thanks for saying it again. Yes, that is the point of a time limit. And for one to start thinking, one has to finish reading. > [@](#): > > My first 2 questions were useful and profound Fantastic. I never said anything was wrong with them. You are taking that thread as an example of what I quoted from the OP in this thread rather personally. > [@](#): > > In spite of some questions that were less than serious, and some questions that did not take the time to fully read and comprehend the OP, there were quite a number of people that did give the type of questions you were looking for. “Less than serious”, yeah. I disagree about there being “quite a number” of them. > [@](#): > > You really didn’t respond to any of them, but only to the questions that you were not looking for. Did you not read my response to that in my previous post? You keep bringing up the same points that I have responded to. > [@](#): > > The entire point of putting in a time limit is to keep people from overthinking it. Ohhhhhh, I get it now! Thank you! I didn’t think discussing that thread would be a hijack of this for the reason I already gave, but it may be seen that way now after repeated posts about it. I’ll stop now unless a different point is made that I think deserves a response. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_the\_Turtle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_the_turtle/32/2926_2.png) [@Fear\_the\_Turtle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_the_Turtle)\ **Post date:** [February 9, 2018, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458/40 "2018-02-09T21:00:08Z")
What may appear to the unobservant observer to be a needless hijack, is actually Performance Art to perfectly illustrate the OPs observations. Well done, Sirs! [/golf clap] [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/technical-accuracy-the-spirit-of-the-op-and-fighting-the-hypothetical/808458.md?page=3)