ITA about the monster-length posts. I’m willing to forgive the OP, and I do my best to wade through the entire thing, but any response that violates the three-click rule (longer than three clicks down the scoll bar) is wandering into JK Rowling territory. Edit, edit, edit! You can say it more effectively with fewer words, I promise.
All posters should be required to check their posts with something besides the usual spellcheck tool (like Dictionary.com or something). When you’re fighting ignorance, it’s usually a good idea to make sure spelling and grammar don’t make you look ignorant yourself.
Loopydude, you stole my joke. Weh. Weh. 
In GQ, there shall be no knee-jerk responses regarding “Tinfoil Hats” or “Tinfoil Hattery” unless accompanied likewise by a scientific debunking (or explanation of why question is undebunkable. Inspired by Wonko The Sane’s insanity inthis recent thread .
In GQ, issues shall be decided by factual evidence. One may discuss one’s memories or beliefs, but may not claim “my memory is infallible” or “I know I’m right”. Inspired by blowero’s hot air in this thread .
In any forum, especially GQ, respondents to a question shall attempt to offer a serious, factual answer before mocking the question(er). Inspired by virtually every dog in the dogpile of this infamous thread.
I…feel…happy!
As a corollary, there is a special place reserved in the nethermost pits of the inferno for those who don’t read the responses to their own fraggin’ OP, and then continue to post: that goes double for GQ, and triple for GD:
OP "Why did the British Empire break up post WW2?
Poster A: Ooh, I know this one! Goes to the shelves to check a couple of books, googles a bit to confirm some dates of PM’s: “Well, there were four or five main reasons…” {A lucid and well summarised half-page account follows}
Poster B: {Presumably repeating the same research process} “You make some good points, A. Actually, France’s policies towards her colonies in the same period provide an interesting contrast…”
Poster C: “If you’re interested in the subject, Professor Horatio Huffnagel’s book on the rise and fall of imperial powers provides some useful reading…”
OP: OK, but why did the British Empire really break up? I think it was because of the Martian radiation the NHS was putting in the lighbulbs…"
{Posters A, B and C, offstage: “rassin’ frassin’ fraggin’ friggin…”}
“The original poster I was commenting on took offense to people using an anatated dictonary to prove points against religion, and I was asking if I could quote the bible, unanoted, when argueing against religous people. I know that many here refuse to respond to minor contridictions like the existance of witches and satyrs (Isaiah 34:14)”
“Do I still get slapped if I cut-and-paste a relevant quotes from an online copy of the king janes bible, with my own word of why it goes against what the theist I am debating said? After all, they are the same bible.”
“jeffh3000 please do not sacrifice a anchovy pizza unto the lord. Just a plain. S/he/it can add whatever igredience are prefered after the fact.”
“Why doesn’t christians hate pizza store owners for the fact they killed Jesus?”
“…a negative conatative word …”
“…besides the possibility of looking rediculous…”
“Are you still here, or has he wondered away from here to greener pasters?”
Thing is, you even know about it, because in that last referenced post, you wrote:
“bonus bad spelling from Scott: teh, warld, ocupado. :D”
So why are you asking me to elaborate on your typos? You already know about them. And the fact that there is scarcely a post from you without a whole bunch of them tends to make me think you’re doing it deliberately. Do you just like the attention?
“Just replace the whole thing with the word ‘black’ and you’ll see why it’s so offensive.”
Uh, no. Example: The Politically Correct Police Are After A Teddy Bear (link to single post).
I know I could find dozens of examples of this, but I really don’t feel like slogging through every post with the words “offensive” or “black” in them. I very vaguely recall a post made about a drunk guy doing something foolish, and someone responded using this argument. Good times. In that particular case, as in most, it did nothing to illustrate the point; rather, comparing the derision of a drunk to racism only minimizes the severity of racial oppression.
No Multiple Dick Wagging
It seems that very often, GQ posts are met with between five and ten identical responses, if only for the sole purpose that the repsonders seem to feel the need to show that “I know the answer, too.” But this is really stupid and ridiculous when the question has already been answered, and multiple times in the same thread at that!
Yeah! No multiple dick wagging. And my I add, no limp-dick wagging either. By half-dick wagging I mean to describe someone who says: “I’m sure someone will be along to offer more details” and then proceeds to offer something extremely vague or incorrect.
Seeing as I’m in a foul mood, all the mutual-masturbation “Show Your Photo” and “Who’s Got The Cutest User Name?” threads in MPSIMS can go, too. And there should be a maximum of one “Isn’t My Cat Weird/Funny/Adorable?” post per member. Ever. Under pain of instant banning.
NEI - Not Enough Information:
“You know that song that goes dee dee dee dee - what’s it called?”
“Can I install a thing in my car that will make it better?”
Eh. I don’t see a problem, in principle, with the photo threads. I actually quite like them, because it’s nice to have an idea of what the people you talk to look like. I do however agree that they’ve got a tendency to go way way over the top and degenerate into massive flirt-fests, which is a wee bit aggravating.
I have no comment on the cat threads, because I’m entirely guilty of the “Eeeeeee! Kitty!” reaction. 
My misspelling have been under the influence of my spell check program braking, and the list was because earlier in the thread, I was castigated for misspelling words, and so I gave them what they so readily pounced on.
Any law named using the general formula: “(Name)'s Law,” where said law is unique to a message board where the search function won’t work for either possessive nouns or three-letter words, must be either stated in full or linked to directly whenever it is cited.
This law should remain in effect until the message board in question acquires a more sophisticated search function, or someone else points out an obviously easier way to search for said laws, or death take me, or the world ends.
I think the simplistic and literal interpretations of the Bible are the ones that most deserve critiquing.
The names for the two sides of the abortion debate are ‘pro-life’ and ‘pro-choice’. Anyone attempting to brand their opposition with any other moniker are to be slapped with a rubber fetus.