[off topic, but:
When I took a course in Art history , the professor pointed out that David’s hands are not properly proportioned. The explanation is that the statue was originally planned to be displayed high above the viewer (in a niche on a cathedral wall, near the ceiling,I think .)So that when viewed from below at the intended angle, the hands would appear foreshortened and therfore properly proportioned to the rest of th statue.
I remember thinking to myself…“hmmm…that theory sounds too convoluted. I wonder if the great Michealangelo just made a mistake…and now the professional art people are too scared to say so.”
Professional art people live in a weird world, where their entire lives are consumed by ART, and everything has deep,deep meaning, which the unenlightened are not capable of understanding… ]
Back to the OP–
Let’s not be too harsh on poor davidmich!
If I ever met him in person, I don’t think we would become good friends.–but as an anonymous poster, he’s never done anything wrong, and his threads generate good discussion.
He doesnt deserve to be Pitted.
Well, other than always asking about English idioms, he does use abbreviations like “sth” and “sb” for “something” and “somebody,” which is usually something you only see in language study or ESL. Now, I guess I could be wrong, because he doesn’t really show much other signs of being a foreign language speaker, but that was always my assumption, even before the “sth” and “sb” stuff came up.
I sent davidmich a PM about this thread, I’d love to see him respond to our feedback with some introspection or personal background. My apologies if that’s not cool for a Pit thread.
Because this is a pitting, I’m going to air my grievances: His use of the phrase “I look forward to your feedback” irks me. Feedback in most usages implies someone is providing an evaluation of some original item.
I’ve always wanted to post in his threads, “here’s my feedback; decent spelling and grammar in your OP, but you could have answered that question with Google or by escaping the cage and going outside occasionally like the humans do.”
Why do I feel like I just punched a special needs kid for being a special needs kid? Sorry david.
How about this: a search of davidmich’s username shows that he has posted in 270 threads. Scrolling through them quickly shows that fully 100% of the threads he’s posted in are threads that he’s started.
GQ is kind of like "“take a penny, leave a penny.” Ask a question you’d like answered, and if there are any threads where you have a particular expertise, drop by and make sure the question is answered correctly. If not, add your answer.
So far davidmich is about 270 pennies in the hole and unlikely to ever contribute anything of value to any other thread. I would feel a bit used if I had responded to one of his threads.
I totally don’t get that. At all. But then I’ve started only a handful of threads in ~14 years. I’ve generated pretty much no content for the board and I am completely comfortable with that.
I’m with you. Expecting someone to participate in other threads they may or may not be interested in seems a little odd to me. If we had a problem with sustained interaction on this board I might feel differently, but we don’t. I couldn’t tell you who spends more time posting threads than participating in threads started by others. I also don’t spend a ton of time in GQ. Maybe this is a GQ specific issue.
I totally understand the OP’s silent screams of “WHY?!?!” I have the same reaction every time I read one of davidmich’s OPs - as in “what could you possibly require this information for?” He doesn’t owe us an answer, obviously, and I think his threads are a net positive to the board. It’s just deeply weird that he never offers any context.
That said, he certainly didn’t need pitting.
Beg to differ. You are one of my favorite factual-stuff posters,* as I have probably mentioned before, and I am quite sure I am not alone in that regard.
*I say favorite factual-stuff posters because you’re not very funny. You should work on that.
Nonsense. One doesn’t have to start threads to generate content. I think that someone who provides educational, thoughtful, and thought-provoking posts is generating content.
I’m not saying that’s you, mind you. Just in general. 
I came across this thread by accident and have a couple of comments.
I agree. In the past three days, only a couple of other posters in GQ have posted more than one question, in each case I believe two. davidmich has posted nine. One of them so inappropriate that it was locked, many of the others rather flaky. Most of us abide by a kind of unwritten rule that basically says think first, post after, which should create a minor reticence to transform every random brain fart into yet another thread.
There’s a big difference between starting a thread and generating content. You can generate a lot of useful content by contributing to an existing thread. You can also, as we see with the topic of discussion here, start threads without contributing any content.
There is another board where a poster became known and somewhat infamous for always – over many years – starting threads asking for advice. It was a general discussion board where people shared stories, experiences, humor, tips – just about everything under this sun, but asking for advice was all this poster ever did, ever. And then he would get belligerent when called out on it. Many of us ended up putting him on ignore to alleviate the frustration. FWIW, that was much worse than davidmich.
ETA: ninja’d by Frank on the “difference between thread-starting and content” issue
What arrogant nonsense. I haven’t noticed you making any particularly valuable contributions in GQ. Nobody is obligated to answer anybody else’s questions, nor is it a requirement that in order to ask questions you need to answer them as well.
I’ve started a grand total of 17 threads in GQ in 14 years here, and probably posted 15,000+ responses to questions posted by others. I certainly don’t feel that anyone “owes” me something. I respond to questions because I find it entertaining to do so. I don’t give a rat’s ass if the people I answer questions for ever answer anyone else’s questions.
Arrogant? Is that really necessary for someone who is respectfully expressing their opinion?
Thank you for confirming that I am not particularly valuable. I will take my ball and leave.
I don’t know that “271 pennies in the hole” is a particularly respectful way of expressing your opinion.
The only one of his I saw locked was because there was another similar thread going (The one about ISIS being a world war). How is that inappropriate?
How are the others “flaky”? They are mostly about understanding English idioms and literary usages. Not flaky but more academic. Perhaps I’m not seeing them. Can you link to the flaky ones? Context would be interesting, but hardly necessary for asking straightforward questions. When asked to clarify he does respond, so he doesn’t post and abandon his threads.
You’re implying that you are somehow more important to this board than davidmich is. That’s arrogant, and is hardly the case.
Oh, poor widdle you. This is the fucking Pit. If you’re going to get upset about being called arrogant in the Pit, then you probably shouldn’t post in this forum.
As a denizen of southern Ontario just like our friend Whiskey, I should point out that entitlement is almost a prerequisite for residence.
Of course, I’m the exception.
I am totally confused and curious about the extremely wide range of questions davidmich asks. But that’s on me. He doesn’t owe us any explanation, and it would probably be something mundane like “I was just curious”. I have more fun trying to tie them all together into a great story. His questions are generally interesting, they spark discussion, he participates in his threads, and he appreciates the feedback.
On another note: the idea that one’s “questions asked” count should balance the “answers provided” in GQ is bizarre. It’s not a place for sharing; it’s a place where people with specialized knowledge can answer the rest of us idiots. I wish people were in general more stingy in their GQ responses and participated in threads only where they actually have knowledge rather than throwing out random guesses. Or to put it better:
No, he’s moved from English idioms to French lessons now. And, in the past week there was the one about ISIS, one about culture, one about history, and my favorite recent one, asking where the engine was located in the Volkswagen beetle. That should tell you something, because even if one were from the planet Neptune – the only way I can imagine not knowing this – the very first sentence of the very first Google hit on “Volkswagen beetle” provides the answer – even if you misspell “beetle”! You don’t even have to lift a finger to click on the Wikipedia link, because the answer is right there at the top of the Google results page.
And that’s one of the things I mentioned upthread that are possibly misleading. The only model that’s officially named VW Beetle was introduced in 1997 and has in fact a front engine. The Volkswagen T1 from 1938, informally called Kaefer or Beetle, was rear-engined.
But that’s the one he’s clearly asking about: “… engines of the old Volkswagen Beatles [sic] (Käfer)…”. Emphasis mine.
It’s perfectly clear what the question is, and it’s a question that can be answered with a single mouse click – assuming one isn’t part of the 99.9% of the population that already knows the answer.
I don’t want to make a bigger deal out of this than it is, but honestly, I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to get a little annoyed or bemused when someone can’t even be bothered to do the most trivial information lookup, all the more so if it’s someone who’s apparently trying to set some sort of record for Most Questions Asked.
Oh right … I forgot why I didn’t answer his thread directly … carry on then.