RigaMortus2 said:
Grant it, not every ruling in the FAQ is wrong, but I think it shows enough inconsistancies to bring it into question. So if you agree with one ruling from the FAQ, but not another, what use is it serving? Basically, you are picking and choosing your rules anyway, so why even use an FAQ at that point?
It's interesting, I use the converse argument to consider the FAQ as indicative unless flawed: clearly, many rules in primary sources are (or were) erroneous. Some rules lead to inconsistencies, and others are ill-considered, and probably unplayable by the letter. I think of the rules as a whole as a explanation about how to best play D&D - occasionally wrong, and sometimes corrected (erratad), and sometimes forced into inconvenient compromises due to badly thought out rules. I don't trust the rules to be error-free, nor for them to describe best-practice very well.
The FAQ's not much different in this regard. Generally, it aims to answer questions in which there is no very definitely answer - issues which require combining multiple rules, reading between the rules, inferring intent, and using common sense. Such rulings you can make based on the rule mechanics too, but the descriptive text is often lacking, and the rule mechanics not always well defined enough to do so.
So unless a rule question is clear cut - i.e. it's simply a matter of knowing where to look it up, essentially - why would the FAQ be any worse than other rules? The advantage of the FAQ above my own judgement is that it allows me to refer to it, and that it's published and open to my players. Unless there's a reason otherwise, I tend to follow the FAQ, and consider it's statement no different than rule-book interpretive statements (i.e. it's not a primary source, but it is a valid source).
Edited to add: Not that it's a bad idea to critically examine the rulings - they're definitely no less broken than much other WotC published material - i.e. most of it's fine, but some of it is questionable