The author accepts getting "dunked on" for blogging but puzzles over Betteridge's Law—any question-mark headline can be answered "no." They explore 8 questions: Are question marks always bad? Only OK if the answer is "yes"? Is the law useful? When is Betteridge dunking appropriate? John Rentoul's book "Questions to Which the Answer Is No!" gives examples like "Will Guam capsize?" But anti-Betteridges like "Is the Pope still Catholic?" are equally irritating—they suggest debate where none exists.

The real issue: titles implying novel possibilities the article doesn't substantiate. Internet incentives reward overconfidence, pushing writers toward aggressive declarative titles. The author prefers "lucid examination of all sides" but questions how such essays should signal content without question marks.

They lean toward allowing question marks for genuinely open questions, but wonder if they should be forbidden entirely. PS: Was Rentoul right about "Should we clone Neanderthals?"