Otto's Journal: A modest proposal (May 10, 2012)
In spite of the general positivity about this site continuing to exist post-BBC, and the herculean effort put in by a large number of immensely talented and dedicated volunteers, I think there's one thing missing. One thing bringing everything and everyone down.

It's this.

There just aren't enough threads about the site itself, about site culture, about moderation, about various other policies. The problem with this site is that we just don't do enough navel gazing. We're not nearly self-obsessed enough. As a site and as a community, we're the anti-narcissus. An unexamined life is not worth living, and therefore the more examining we do into the life of the site, the better. Obviously.

When do we ever take time out from writing and reviewing guide entries, posing and answering questions in 'Ask', bickering about religion, blaming 2legs, and trying to get featured on QotD to take a long hard look at ourselves and pose some serious questions? It seems as if no-one is ever brave enough to start a thread or risk derailing an existing discussion.

We're in real danger of drifting away from DNA's original vision for this site, as one in which researchers will endless analyse and re-analyse the community, the site rules, the interpretation of the site rules, and the 'atmosphere'. It was meant to be the guide to it's own life, it's own little universe, and everything about h2g2. Shamefully, 'h2g2 researcher' has come to mean 'researcher for the h2g2 website' rather than the original intention of 'researcher into the h2g2 website'. This needs to change.

Which brings me to my modest proposal. That we set up a completely new site dedicated expressly and exclusively to the study and discussion of this site. I propose the name 'Hitchikers Guide to the Hitchikers Guide to the Galaxy, or h2g2h2g2tG for short, though that's probably the chemical name for something explosive.

Naturally all discussion of the politics/culture/rules of this new site will be banned for being excessively meta, PoMo, and silly.

Click here to discuss this
(4 replies, Latest reply: May 11, 2012)

Otto's journal: Trying (and failing) to rise above it (Dec 28, 2011)
I'm not a particularly happy bunny at the moment. I'm an annoyed bunny, an offended bunny. And a bunny who should know better and should just let this lie, but who has settled for a journal post as a kind of pretend middle ground. Aristotle said that the great souled man (and, presumably, bunny) should ignore petty slights, but fully avenge serious ones. Well, no doubt my soul is a work in progress.

I wrote an edited guide article recently, and at the time of writing its on the front page. It's on the 'covert stammer', a subject that I'm reasonably well qualified to write about. Until a few years ago, I was so 'covert' that I rarely acknowledged having a stammer or discussing it. Instead, all my energies went into hiding it. For reasons that I won't go into here, I decided to be much more open about it. I thought about writing an edited guide entry, but I was going to do so under a sock puppet account - probably called 'Guy Dentry' - to be created for that purpose. Why was I going to do that? Well, it's because no-one on h2g2 knows that 'Otto' has a stammer, nor could deduce it from anything I've said here in the ten+ years in which I've been a h2g2 researcher. I've got a bit of a soft spot for the 'Otto' persona, and I wasn't at all sure I wanted to associate that entry with it because I don't want to change the way in which Otto is perceived. I don't want Otto to be thought any less of (as can happen in real life) and I don't want Otto to get any sympathy votes (ditto).

But I did it anyway, and I'm glad I did. Comments in the EGWW and PR were as rigorous, fair, and constructively critical as for everything else I've ever submitted. In particular, comments illustrated very well a point that I made in the entry - that 1% of adults have a stammer, so everyone will know someone. Indeed, we have a number of current researchers who do or did stammer to a greater or lesser extent. Their contribution was particularly important, as my experience is of one type of stammer, and a very mild version of it. So it appeared on the front page, with a nice illustration drawn by Rosie and carefully sub-edited by Lanza.

And then someone (who I won't name, as it's now gone) decided to post a comment that consisted of a subject line praising the entry, but written in a pretend-stammering style. I suppose it was the ultimate back-handed compliment. It was followed by this smile in the body of the comment.

The best that can be said about this is that it was crassly insensitive and inappropriate, and even insulting. If it was intended as humour, it was spectacularly poorly judged, given remarks made in the entry about how hurtful it can be to mimic someone else's stammer. The worst that could be said about it is that it could have been a deliberate and malicious act, calculated to upset, belittle and offend. I don't think it takes a great deal of empathy to realise that that entry is an intensely personal bit of writing, and that while I'm open to constructive criticism and comment and correction (as always), a modicum of sensitivity is in order.

I wasn't sure how to respond. Should I take this as a 'joke', and was I in danger of over-reacting or being over-sensitive? In the entry, I discuss my view of stammering in popular culture (including the way that its played it for laughs), and I worry about being open to charges of special pleading or double standards if I find myself po-faced, condemning any use of a stammer for humour, given some of the other topics for comedy that I clearly seem to regard as relatively fair game. So I didn't respond, and went back to enjoying the festive season.

Some other researchers (who I also won't name) felt this post was inappropriate and said so. One researcher argued that the post was most likely at the more charitable end of the possible interpretations of intention that I mentioned earlier. Maybe. I certainly hope so. Someone (not me) clearly felt strongly enough to 'yikes' the initial post, the moderators agreed, and presumably because it was the subject line that was the problem, the whole conversation has now gone.

So why am I bringing all this up again if it's gone? I'm not entirely sure, and I'm certainly not sure that this post is a good idea, or even has any point to it at all. I'm not after sympathy or support, and I'm not after a witch-hunt against the researcher responsible - though I think a bit of reflection on that researcher's part and an apology are both well and truly in order. I fear, though, that the response will be more likely to be more whinging about the unfairness of moderation than any kind of reflection about appropriate behaviour.

I don't even know if the researcher responsible will even read this - probably not. I guess I just wanted to register in some small way that I'd seen the comment, and that I thought it was inappropriate at best, and offensive at worst. Not just to me personally, as someone who put a lot of myself into that entry - but to anyone who might find the entry (via google) who also has a stammer. Those readers should not be confronted by mockery in the comments.

Click here to discuss this
(4 replies, Latest reply: Dec 29, 2011)

Otto's Journal: Reading the 'backlog' (Dec 2, 2011)

Interesting (to me, at least) question of netiquette... is it acceptable to just post in a thread without having read the "backlog"?

I know we've got some huge mega-threads on the site that have been running since before the dawn of time. In such cases, it's probably fair enough. Similarly with other huge threads that aren't so old.

But isn't saying "I've not read the backlog" and then posting a bit like saying... "I don't care what anyone else thinks, but here's what I reckon". Discourteous? I think so. While I'm not sure I'd expect a new contributor to go through and take detailed notes, I think a brief skim-read is really the minimum required. I'm not even sure that "backlog" is a particularly respectful phrase. It is a 'log' of posts that to 'back', but generally the term 'backlog' does not have positive connotations.

Every time I read:
"I haven't read the backlog, but..."

I feel like responding with.
"Well, I have read all the contributions so far, except yours"

I won't, though.

To be clear...
(1) This post isn't aimed at anyone in particular - a lot of people do/have done this
(2) Responding to this with a post that begins "I haven't read the backlog" probably counts as irony, but is - alas - rather predictable. And don't pretend you weren't considering it.

Click here to discuss this
(2 replies, Latest reply: Dec 4, 2011)

Otto's Journal: Moderation in Everything, and Everything in Moderation... (Nov 2, 2011)

There has been lots of sound and fury about moderation and moderation decisions over the last few days, and more specifically moderation policy for the future. Much of it has been constructive, some of it playful, and some of it just outright trolling and/or attention seeking.

I'm a bit puzzled by some of the fuss, because in over a decade on h2g2 I've had a post moderated a grand total of.... once. And that was for posting a link to a business that seemed to be operating on similar principles to the 'restaurant at the end of the universe'. I can't remember exactly what it was - immortality insurance or something - but I posted it because I thought it was funny and interesting, and it was moderated for being an 'advert'. Which it wasn't.

It's possible that it's happened more often than that, but I don't recall any other occasions.

So amidst all of the policy discussions, trolling, spurious nonsense about 'censorship', and helpful constructive comment, I can't help but wonder whether there's a little more scope for researchers to consider - I don't know - learning the rules and following them? Playing nicely?
Click here to discuss this
(5 replies, Latest reply: Nov 24, 2011)

Otto's Journal: Since you've been gone.... (Oct 17, 2011)

Oddly, the interregnum between the dog days of the BBC era and the glorious new dawn of the, er, h2g2 era, coincided almost precisely with an interregnum of my own, involving a house move and associated lack of interweb access and time. Now, however, I'm back, and you, oh beloved reader, are also back. So here's a quick catch-up on what I've mostly been thinking...

1. Cats and deportation.
Teresa "and I'm not making this up" May in fact did, er, make it up. Or at least one of her researchers did, or one of the propaganda sheets did. Either way, it should have been obvious that it wasn't true, and even if it wasn't obvious, she should have checked. Potentially a resigning matter, I would have thought.... to be that badly wrong and obviously misinformed.

But cabinet minister tells obvious and risible untruth to the Tory conference (which I think the Guardian once described as the anti-Woodstock, a festival of bile and vitriol) is not news. What is news is how some lunatics in the Daily Hate and in various comments sections tried to claim that - in spite of *all* the evidence to the contrary - that some it was still true. Weirdly, they *wanted* it to be true. They were *desperate* for it to be true. Anyone else think that's a little weird? Wanting something to be true just so you can feel all aggrieved and angry *because* it's true and you don't want it to be?

But that's the weird and wacky world of deluded dissonance that these loons live in. I've been trying to think of an analogy, and this it he best I've done so far... it's like me *wanting* shops to start playing Christmas songs in October just so that I can get outraged about them playing Christmas songs in October, something that I say I don't want.


2. Moving House - a few thoughts and reflections.
Freecycle is great for getting rid of spare stuff
Estate Agents are annoying, but aren't as bad as they're portrayed
Pay for a removal company and for a packing service if you possibly can.
It'll all be worth it in the end.
Christ, it's expensive.
Stamp Duty is a bizarre tax. But... happy to pay, as always.
I'm looking forward to having the boiler fixed. And then replaced.
I like my new house

3. Thanks for all the fish
Lots of threads of appreciation for the volunteers who saved the site and made the transition happen, and quite right too. I'd like to add my own tribute here, and I'm also going to start writing for the edited guide again. Finish off all that half-finished stuff.

4. Interregnum is a wonderful word that I should use more often

5. Can we have our NHS back, please? Rather than, you know, sold off piecemeal for private cherry-picking profit. As a bit of a sickboy, I'm not happy.

Click here to discuss this
(1 reply, Latest reply: Oct 17, 2011)

Otto's Journal: Ten years ago today... (Aug 5, 2011)

This happened. Ten years ago. Ten whole years. A decade. Ouch. And at the same time, good.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F73865?thread=132230


Click here to discuss this
(3 replies, Latest reply: Aug 5, 2011)

Otto's Journal: The Spirit Level (Sep 15, 2010)

Finally got round to reading "The Spirit Level: Why more equal societies almost always do better" by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett.

It's not the most thrilling or exciting read, but the arguments are certainly compelling. Time and again the statistics show that inequality is at the root of much of society's problems, and while the arguments for causation (rather that correlation) between inequality and various social problems is inevitably a little weaker, to quote a phrase often used by the authors "it cannot be coincidence"...

I've had to adjust my thinking based on it... I used to rather dismissive of 'broken Britain' arguments and claims that society is worse now than it used to be. But now I think I might have to concede that in some ways, it is "broken" and has the potential to become more "broken" if inequality is allowed to increase. But the answer isn't Tory 'one nation' style back to basics/Victorian values, it's in decreasing inequality, so that everyone benefits. Everyone. Not just the poor. Everyone.

To misquote a phrase... "It's inequality, stupid". It seems to be at the root of pretty much everything.
Click here to discuss this
(4 replies, Latest reply: Sep 15, 2010)

Otto's Journal: Obama? (Jan 21, 2009)

Here's the thing. A lot of people whose views I respect, and a lot of people around the whole world are very enthusiastic about Barak Obama being inaugurated this week. It's rare to see much optimism and enthusiasm for a politician. The election is being talked of in historic, epoch-making terms and I've already heard people saying things like they'll always remember where they were, that their grandchildren might ask about this day and so on and so forth.

But I have to admit, the whole thing leaves me cold. I don't deny the historical significance of what's happened, nor that Obama is likely to be a much better President than Bush. The world will be a significantly better place with America pursuing a less unilateral foreign policy and perhaps even doing something about Climate Change.

However, although I don't wish America ill in any way, I just don't look to America or her President as the leader of the free world or for leadership or example. Some of America's founding principles are noble and admirable, but some are not - or perhaps it is fair to say, the way they are put into practice are not. I'm not a knee-jerk leftist-Spartist anti-American (or at least I don't think I am). I don't think something is bad just because America does it or supports it.

There is much to admire about America and American culture (entertainment, 'can do' attitude, openness etc etc) , and I have to say that I've never met an American in person that I didn't like. But for me, America is so far from a fair society in terms of distribution of wealth and fair equality of opportunity - further even than the UK - that I just don't see America as an example. However progressive Obama is in an American context, it seems to me that the American Democrats are well to the right of the British Tories.

If the new President means a more equal America, then that's great and I'm pleased for them. But I'm not sure it's worth quite this amount of hype and enthusiasm outside of the US. In the UK, we should be looking to the social democracies of Europe for an example, not just to the US. The extent to which America dominates our news media is frankly alarming - how much coverage does the French or German election get in comparison, even considering relative geo-political importance.

The extent to which the media and ordinary people in the UK are discussing American *domestic* policies is rather surprising - is it (a) any of our business (as non-Americans) and (b) should it really be of any interest? Aren't we too obsessed with America?

Click here to discuss this
(1 reply, Latest reply: Jan 26, 2009)

Otto's Journal: College Saga (Jun 1, 2007)

A quick plug for one of my favourite things at the moment - College Saga. It's a series of videos that spoof Fantasy Roleplaying Games in general, and the Final Fantasy Series in particular. I'm not a hardcore FF player by any means, but I've played a couple of them, and certainly enough to find this very, very funny. I particularly love the camera work.

This is a must for anyone who's every played one of the FF games...

http://www.retardism.com/collegesaga/main.htm
Click here to discuss this
(1 reply, Latest reply: Jun 1, 2007)

Otto's Journal: FORZA ROSSONERI! (May 23, 2007)

I won't be watching the Champions' League Final tonight - Wednesdays is my regular night for playing sport, rather than watching. But if I was watching, I'd be cheering on AC Milan.

Never mind all this "support the English team" nonsense. I'm an Everton fan, and there's no way I'll support Liverpool. Bitter? Possibly? Envious? Certainly.

But it's impossible to be any other way, given the wall-to-wall sycophantic media coverage that Liverpool and their "best fans in the world" get, not to mention the hoardes of glory-hunting part-time fans who seem to seep out of the woodwork on these occasions. Now granted, I'm an armchair footie fan who only goes to see Everton a couple of times a season, but I don't pretend to be anything else. When I was a kid I used to go and watch Everton all across London with my friend and his family, who were all from Liverpool. And last time we won anything (FA Cup, 1995) you would have seen me watching the match on TV as usual, not bedecked in club colours and proclaiming an utter devotion that only comes out when we're winning.

Last time they won it, in Istanbul, the truth of the matter is that AC imploded for a short period of the game, but were, in truth, dominant for the whole first half and looked the most likely to score after it came to 3-3 and throughout extra time. And Liverpool won on penalties. Yet to read the match reports in the English press, you'd think it was some kind of heroic victory. Liverpool didn't win it, AC lost it and then it went to penalties. Think how differently it would have been reported if it had been the other way round.

But as someone said on an Everton forum recently, Liverpool are Satan's own team, and if there's any luck going, they'll get it.


Click here to discuss this
(23 replies, Latest reply: Jan 29, 2009)

Otto'sJournal: The shrill of secular illiberalism (Jul 6, 2006)

My philosophical hero, John Rawls, wrote a book called 'Political Liberalism' in which he explored the consequences of what he called 'permanent pluralism' (or something like that). Roughly, this is the view that there are now and will always be very different conceptions of the 'good life', very different world views, very different moral and metaphysical outlooks. Given this, how can people agree to live together within a stable state?

Rawls' suggestion is what he calls an 'overlapping consensus' - trying to find points of agreement between otherwise very different views about what the state should look like. He aruged that people should have a sense of themselves as citizen, and as private individual. As private individual, I might believe x and y and z, but as a citizen I accept that I have the right to believe this and argue for it, but not to impose it on others.

Thus, the state stays neutral between these competing conceptions. Rawls argued that people should have a loyalty to this 'overlapping consensus' as something that protects their rights now, and their rights to change their mind about their life in the future. Not a 'mere modus vivendi'.

What troubles me is a tendancy to reject this overlapping consensus. Surprisingly, it's coming not from the religous fundamentalist, but from a new kind of secular fundamentalist. These SFs are not content just to fight and argue against certain metaphysical viewpoints and to try to reduce the religious influence in society (which is reasonable), but to try to silence voices from the political debate (which is not).

This is often accompanied by the setting up of 'straw target' religious views that are attacked and easily destroyed, ignoring or failing to engage with more sophisticated versions. The typical 'straw target' religious person is a fanatic, a controller, a fascist, an evolution denier, completely irrational. There are many like that in all religions - Christianity has its Taliban as well as Islam. But a great many religious people, particularly in the western world, are not like that at all.

I'm a liberal, secular, humanist. I don't want to live in a more religious society, but it's only possible to advance liberal, secular, and humanist aims by understanding the arguments of one's opponents. And understanding them properly, not just attacking straw targets. And in general, I think, people have a duty as citizens and as credible thoughtful people to properly understand the viewpoints of others.

I find it worrying when secular, sensible people start to close themselves off to other ideas, to ridicule other views rather than trying to understand them, to try to silence and attack ad homenim rather than letting the arguments be heard, and then seeking to win the debate properly and fairly. Especially as that's what they accuse their opponents of doing.


Click here to discuss this
(10 replies, Latest reply: Jan 12, 2007)

Otto's Journal: Chinese Food (Jun 28, 2006)

My local Chinese takeaway is called the 'Tasty Wok', and is very good indeed. Food excellent, prepared quickly, staff friendly and efficient.

However, I had something of a shock when I phoned to place an order the other day. Usually I'd just drop in on the way home. 'Tasty Wok' is a good name for a Chinese takeaway when written down, but when spoken, it sounds rather too much like "Taste Ewok". And when people answer the phone, they sometimes use a question intonation tone, so it sounds like an offer or a question....

"Sweet and Sour Wicket, please, and a Chief Chirpa Chop Suey....."

Beeeeechaaawawa.....
Click here to discuss this
(No replies)

Otto's Journal: Moderators (Feb 12, 2006)

I just read a post about moderators and moderation, and started thinking about the concept in general.

The Moderator. The enemy (no, that's not moderate enough), the foe (no...), the opponent (better) of extreme opinions and violent sentiments on any subject.

In charge of upholding the standards of moderateness everywhere, The Moderator sits in his moderately confortable armchair in front of his moderately powerful PC. Wearing tweed and smoking a pipe, he's there, ready with a quick "steady on, old chap" for anyone being more than moderately immoderate....
Click here to discuss this
(2 replies, Latest reply: Feb 13, 2006)

Otto's Journal: The scariest thing on TV ever.... (Jan 24, 2006)

.... was in 'Life on Mars' this week and last. This is an excellent TV show about a cop who has an accident and wakes in the 1970s, which might be a hallucination or might not be. He might have really time travelled, he might not because he occasionally hears voices indicating that he's in a coma.

One of these hallucinations was the little girl with the clown toy from the BBC test card becoming real and being sinister and scary....

Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!


Click here to discuss this
(No replies)

Otto's Journal: Posh Kid Complains to Newspapers (May 9, 2005)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1604710,00.html

I'm really sick of people from private schools complaining about being 'discriminated against' for university places when in fact everything is stacked in their favour. They've had educational advantages *bought* for them - smaller class sizes, better equipment/library, more extra curricular activities, and an all-round better education since the age of 11 or even from 5.

"I received no feedback, so my teachers and I could only guess at the possible reasons for these rejections. The rejected applicants all had one thing in common: we all attended a private school."

Well guess what? No-one gets any feedback, and most people (certainly eleven years ago when I was applying) got plenty of rejections, particularly if all of your choices are the top universities. I have no idea why certain universities rejected me, but you didn't see me whinging about it in the Times.

And there's no *evidence* that this student was rejected because of being at a private school. Actually more people are applying to go to university that ever before (or at least nearly) and places at the universities that are perceived to be "top" are much harder to come by.

And the article rather pathetically claims that the student in question was "forced" to take a gap year, while at the same time stating that she had an offer from Nottingham - a very good university.

"It just didn’t seem very fair, I know there is positive discrimination in other areas but this should just be about academic ability, no matter what type of school you have come from. I support state school pupils getting every opportunity to apply to top universities, and if they are the most able, they should be given places. But they should not be given preferential treatment."

This from someone who's had nothing but preferential treatment for years......

Nothing like the annual university admissions whinge to bring out the class warrior in me......

Click here to discuss this
(6 replies, Latest reply: May 11, 2005)

Otto's Journal: Find the Fisch.... (Jan 13, 2005)

I've not been around much recently, and probably won't be around h2g2 anything like as much as I used to be. Why? I don't know really. I think it's a phase that most researchers go through at some point. It's been 3 and half years since I first registered, so perhaps that's long enough for a h2g2 midlife crisis.

I'll be around occasionally, though....
Click here to discuss this
(1 reply, Latest reply: Jan 14, 2005)

Otto's Journal: "The people have spoken. The b******ds" (Nov 5, 2004)

.... as someone once said.

I think I had a lucky escape. I never seriously thought that Kerry would win, and in fact I'm surprised that he came so close. Perhaps it's because I went to bed early rather that putting myself through listening to the results coming in - I didn't hear the early opinion polls and so wasn't disappointed the next morning.

I've never been to America, so all my knowledge of America is second hand. But it seems to me that Kerry did very well to come as close as he did, given that there's a war on. Because the US President is Head of State, he symbolises the country in a way that the British PM doesn't, and it seems to me that this gives the incumbent a real advantage, particularly as Bush has shamelessly played the patriot card at every opportunity. Kerry did well to get close, it seems to me, given the political climate.

And I think many people had completely unrealistic expectations about what a Kerry presidency would have meant. He's liberal and multilateral by US standards, but that doesn't mean that he was going to sign up to Kyoto, the International Criminal Court, reverse US policy in Israel, revitalise the UN. It would have changed the political climate in that it would have opened a number of windows of opportunity for improvements in relations between the EU nations and the US and allowed some face-saving, but President Kerry would not have suddenly started respecting the UN and acting only with its full authorisation. Clinton didn't, and that was in a very different political climate.

But how serious a blow is the reelection of Bush? Nationally, I think it's a disaster for liberal America, especially if it looks like it was the Christian Right 'wot won it', as they seek to impose their world view on others. Same as religious extremeists everywhere of any religion.

Internationally, I don't think that Bush could get away with invading another country, say Iran. I don't think that Blair could get away with supporting the US a second time in the current climate. I wonder whether Bush could get away with it, bearing in mind how much support Kerry got and the mess that Iraq is still in. Is the US capable of mounting another invastion/occupation effort by itself? But then I thought the same about Iraq when the US attacked Afghanistan.

Semi-finally, some amusing slogans I've seen:
"Why change horseman mid-apocalypse?"
"Vote Cthulu for President. Why settle for the lesser evil?"

Actual finally, a link to some interesting commentry on the US election:
http://www.spiked-online.com/Sections/politics/index.htm

Mick Hume's article on 'white trash bashing' is particularly worth a read. I disagree with Hume most of the time, but here I think he's on to something....




Click here to discuss this
(2 replies, Latest reply: Dec 7, 2004)

Otto's Journal: Chris Morris and On the Hour (Aug 27, 2004)


... can be heard on the BBC 'listen again' bit of the website. This is the radio precursor to 'The Day Today' and is just as funny...

"Last year there were 200 different types of wood in Hampshire. Now there are 300. If you know who's been leaving types of word in Hampshire, please call......"


Click here to discuss this
(1 reply, Latest reply: Sep 7, 2004)

Otto's journal: Patrick Moore Plays the Xylophone... (Aug 25, 2004)

Oh yes indeed he does...

http://www.weebls-stuff.com/toons/20/

And, from the golden era of computing that I'm just old enough to remember some of...

http://www2.b3ta.com/heyhey16k/
Click here to discuss this
(No replies)

Otto's Journal: Mmmmm... firefox.... (Aug 1, 2004)

I've finally heeded all of the warnings and ditched *nt*rn*t *xpl*r*r and downloaded the Fox of Fire. A few teething problems and not everything works quite as well, but the's a delicious smoothness to FireFox and the tab browsing thing is great. All hail to the Fox of Fire!

Otto
Click here to discuss this
(3 replies, Latest reply: Aug 3, 2004)

Otto's journal: A H2G2 Legend (Jun 18, 2004)

Demon Drawer has had his 100th edited guide entry published on the front page today. Congratulations are in order - see
F29962?thread=437395

Otto


Click here to discuss this
(1 reply, Latest reply: Jun 25, 2004)

Otto's Journal: Fisch's First Law (May 7, 2004)

Fisch's First Law states that anyone using the expression "political correctness gone mad" is almost always wrong about whatever they happen to be arguing about at the time....
Click here to discuss this
(4 replies, Latest reply: May 8, 2004)

Otto's Journal: 'Brass Eye' satirist returns to the spotlight on Channel 4 (Apr 16, 2004)

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=511877




Click here to discuss this
(No replies)

Le journal d'Otto: Funny thought for the day.... (Mar 31, 2004)

When "The Passion of the Christ" is released on DVD (as it surely will be), do you think it will include a selection smeg-ups, bloopers and amusing outakes?

Click here to discuss this
(No replies)

Otto's Journal: the NOW show! (Mar 11, 2004)

Radio 4's 'Now Show' is back on, and can be heard via the radio player thing on the BBC website. It's absolutely fantastic. Listen out for the Britishness test and Mitch Benn's Janet Jackson song....

You've got until Friday before it's replaced by the new version. Have a listen!
Click here to discuss this
(1 reply, Latest reply: Mar 11, 2004)


Older Entries >>
Back to Researcher's Personal Space