"I'm guessing that you think they aren't good for "fishing" either?"

I'm guessing you think being a smart-ass is effective?

"Books aren't set up for discussion."

No. Books are set for learning as well. Discussion isn't the only means for learning. IRC/Chat is the same way. You can learn with this as well.

"StackOverFlow is to ask well-defined questions and get well-defined answers"

Which is another way of saying what I said.

You then go one to promote several things that SO appears to do.

Reputation, for example, promotes answering questions. My experience is that the answer is succinct, and simple. It provides the answer, and that is good.

It provides the fish.

SO doesn't, however, encourage teaching. Even the setup is simple: ask a question, get an answer. The answer is most likely the answer that provides the quickest fish. Oh, you do find occasionally someone will provide a very thoughtful response, but this is the exception, not the norm for SO.

"Finally, I think you, and many others, are completely missing the point of StackOverFlow"

No, I haven't. My post that you replied to even said that what SO does it does well. You're just getting defensive, whipping insults, and for some reason, seem upset that someone wouldn't kneel down before the all might SO. I wouldn't be surprised if you are an Apple zealot.

My main contention is that SO is setup for providing answers to questions. It's not setup for discussion, or learning. SO's success is a result of human nature. People needing an answer go there, get the answer, and leave. They copy/paste and move on. That's the nature of SO. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.

SO isn't bad. It provides fish. I love fish (tilapia is a good fish). It's a fish monger. It doesn't encourage providing bait, or tackle. Just look through the majority of answers that are rated highest. They provide code. Code someone can copy and paste. Sometimes they'll provide a link to the place someone can get code, or get a direct answer. Rarely is their discussion as to why someone is asking a question. This isn't encouraged. Answering a question with a question does't get you reputation. The reputation economy encourages answers.

I do want to address this:

"What happens in a forum when no one answers a question?"

I assume you actually mean when no one responds to a question. Answering a question is different from responding to one.

No response usually means no one is capable of answering the question. Rather than provide a half-assed answer for reputation, it simple goes unanswered.

However, no answer usually means the question is a poor one. If SO's great power is in answering questions like "Reversing strings", then it's really not tackling anything difficult. These questions get answered all the time. The questions that are more difficult, however, require discussion. When their is no direct answer. Indeed, suggesting that their is an answer (as SO does) hurts the discussion process. Suddenly, instead of learning, you read the Question, and the Answer, and assume that the Answer is the end of the discussion. It's THE Answer. But it's not. It's merely the one with the most votes.

So no, I'm right. SO gives fish. It doesn't teach fishing.