# What's wrong with GQ? -- ignorant answers **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 31, 2003, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697 "2003-05-31T02:42:37Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Mr.Hand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mr.Hand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Hand)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/21 "2003-05-31T04:41:36Z")
The collection agency probably bought the debt for something like 10 cents on the dollar. If it thinks its costs of suing on the debt are lower than the return, it’ll sue every time. And since the OP mentions only one colleciton agency calling the brother, I suspect the collection agency bought all the debt and has consolidated it pursuant to Ohio Revised Code section 1319.2(H) (quoted above). ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/22 "2003-05-31T04:50:34Z")
Personally, I think the problem in GD is due to the quasi-internal psychological group-state gestalt with underlying tendencies toward social reprogramming and the breakdown of the traditional parental paradyne with regards to synergistic imbalance. In other words, I have no idea but I’ll throw a lot of bullshit at the subject and hope some of it sticks. ---
**Author:** ![Random](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/57b2e6/32.png) [@Random](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Random)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/23 "2003-05-31T04:58:18Z")
Preach it, **Mr. Hand!** (Back in the original thread, one of the misposters is still claiming that the ability of unsecured creditors to get a judgment and levy against personal property is some rare event.) And **SPOOFE** , how is Gentle Reader supposed to know that **Mr. Hand** knows what he’s talking about and that \*\*Reeder \*\* is spewing nonsense? Is it okay if I respond to a medical question with bad advice? Should I tell someone to correct his computer issue by reformatting his hard drive? Sorry, I do see a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 6:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/24 "2003-05-31T06:51:56Z")
SPOOFE, in the thread in question, the bad information was “corrected” by further bad information. A few correct replies were made, but still further incorrect posts were made. That turned a GD thread into an IMHO-type thread, and a train wreck of one at that. I do have a problem with posters providing factually incorrect answers in GQ threads, because they are too ignorant and too lazy to get it right, they assume that their opinions are fact, and for some reason they see fit to expound their ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Nametag](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nametag/32/406_2.png) [@Nametag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nametag)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/25 "2003-05-31T18:53:12Z")
From the OP: > [@](#): > > A couple years ago he ran up something like $15,000 on **a credit card** … . ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/26 "2003-05-31T20:32:09Z")
> [@](#): > > And SPOOFE, how is Gentle Reader supposed to know that Mr. Hand knows what he’s talking about and that Reeder is spewing nonsense? > [@](#): > > SPOOFE, in the thread in question, the bad information was “corrected” by further bad information. A few correct replies were made, but still further incorrect posts were made. That turned a GD thread into an IMHO-type thread, and a train wreck of one at that. One bad apple does not a trend make. Note that I referred to the “vast majority of the time,” not “all the time.” ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/27 "2003-05-31T20:33:27Z")
Oops. My response to the first quote was supposed to be “By providing cites to support his answer.” Most often, that is how things go in GQ. Again, I see no problem. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/28 "2003-05-31T22:00:34Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PurplePerson \* > \*\*What a boring place without opinions. I also like the humor that is sometimes inserted. \*\* I love the opinions in IMHO, and MPSIMS. And the forceful opinions that appear in the Pit are often entertaining as well. But I’d suggest that GQ is for people that KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT to answer the questions posed by those who wish accurate information. If this makes GQ a boring place for you, **PurplePerson** , perhaps you may find entertainment elsewhere. ---
**Author:** ![PurplePerson](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ec9cab/32.png) [@PurplePerson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PurplePerson)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 11:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/29 "2003-05-31T23:17:54Z")
:o Your opinion. I like GQ the way it is. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/30 "2003-05-31T23:18:55Z")
This thread makes me feel like I’m back in my article 9 course. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Hand](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c68b51/32.png) [@Mr.Hand](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Hand)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2003, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/31 "2003-05-31T23:25:32Z")
How funny, because the thread it’s based on is somewhat relevant to article 9. ---
**Author:** ![DemonSpawn52](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f17d59/32.png) [@DemonSpawn52](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonSpawn52)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/32 "2003-06-01T00:30:37Z")
- Bryan Ekers \* > [@](#): > > Personally, I think the problem in GD is due to the quasi-internal psychological group-state gestalt with underlying tendencies toward social reprogramming and the breakdown of the traditional parental paradyne with regards to synergistic imbalance. Aw crap… **Justhink** is back. ---
**Author:** ![RexDart](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/b77776/32.png) [@RexDart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RexDart)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/33 "2003-06-01T01:00:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Mr. Hand \* > \*\*How funny, because the thread it’s based on is somewhat relevant to article 9. \*\* Well, a little releveant at least. Article 9 is supposed to govern the sale of accounts, and thus I found it odd that Ohio had a state statute authorizing such sale (yeah, I know the UCC is actually a state statute passed by the legislature in each state, I’m just saying a separate such statute is redundant.) I suppose that’s the only way it’s relevant, because this was unsecured credit, but my professors for Secured Transactions and for Bankruptcy cooridinated their discussion of lien avoidance, so that’s probably why I was thinking about article 9. Oh, and the person in the 8th comment you list seems to be thinking specifically of a purchase money security interest, though why he would be differentiating that from a regular security interest in terms of rights upon default, I have no idea. If more GQ threads were about this sort of thing, rather than sciency stuff, I’d probably hang out there more often. That would be _my_ only complaint about GQ, all the science-ish questions posted over there that I can’t help out on, and which are answered in science-ese that nobody can understand. The terms I used in the two paragraphs above are pretty simple and understandable even for non-lawyers and the whole thing could be explained to any layman pretty easily, yet those science people all too often can’t seem to boil their answers down to something that regular people understand. I took two semesters of calculus-based physics at college, and surely many SDMB readers had even less science, but we still get these answers over there that seem to assume everyone has an advanced degree in molecular biology. But then, not everyone can be as good as Cecil is at making things understandable. ---
**Author:** ![by-tor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/by-tor/32/266_2.png) [@by-tor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/by-tor)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 1:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/34 "2003-06-01T01:33:26Z")
I think the problem has been worse lately. Also, much of the attempted humor is really lame imho. ---
**Author:** ![astro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/9dc877/32.png) [@astro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astro)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2003, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697/35 "2003-06-01T02:48:26Z")
This is not Encyclopædia Britannica it’s just _a message board_. Everyone has their area of expertise. Some people have facts and some have opinions, and some have opinions they think are facts. The majority of the time correct information will struggle to the top as it did in the cited thread. We can piss and moan about WAGsters or opinionated know nothings all we want, but in the end this is the worlds biggest Q&A sit down and no one should be denied a place at the table unless they are misbehaving. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/whats-wrong-with-gq-ignorant-answers/178697.md?page=1)