h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'm iintrigued that the editor of this Entry hides behind the anonymity of 'the h2g2 editors'. What are you afraid of?

There's an asymmetry of power here - you know who I am, but I don't know who you are. Very reminiscent of Das Schloss by Franz Kafka (1926).

I've been warned not to upset the faceless people of the h2g2 team, (Das Schloss again).

Nevertheless, I have comments.

(1) This isn't a bad editing job, seeing that you have to reduce everything to the bland h2g2 house style. The article's more important than that, though. It's induced religious experiences in at least 2 h2g2 members. No wonder you're collectively scared of it. It's too real.

(2) I still don't know who (anonymously) committed the atrocity of rejecting the first (and best) version of this on the grounds that it had 'a philosophers' in-joke vibe'. Thus showing ignorance, incomprehension and prejudice. Unnamed again, (see the Kafka reference). Do you actually know who Kafka was? Do you actually know Das Schloss?

(3) Are you aware of the parallels between the way you're running this thing and the methods of bureaucratic capitalism? Rule by bureaucrats, unanswerable to anyone but the Board? (the BBC), NOT the members. No democracy here. (cf Das Schloss)

(4) In the lamentable project on intelligence, in which no terms are defined and no evidence is offered, it is claimed that 'geniuses' are often driven out of their communities. I have a 'genius' IQ but I am by no means a genius. BUT I had lots of plans for articles I'm no longer interested in presenting because of your anonymous hostility. I only proceeded with this one because my fellow researchers supported and encouraged me, in spite of your unreachable bureacratic Kafkaesque and offensive dismissal of my original article. So I'm probably being 'driven out'.

(4) IN fact I shall quit this malformed Institution as soon as I can, unless someone steps up as an individual, not an anonymous bureaucrat , and attempts to explain why things have gone SO wrong.

I doubt that you have the courage to respond. I doubt also that you have even bothered to read this. It's easier to put it in some bureaucratic category - such as 'troublemaker' - and then dismiss it. (This is sadder for you than it is for me - you do yourselves no credit).

The 'genius IQ' was meant to be a sardonic reference to the confusions in intelligence testing, as repeated in the Intelligence Project. No replies yet??? What a surprise.

The Editors haven't answered as they don't subscribe to the entries that they edit. The h2g2 Editor persona often picks up entries that subs have to drop for one reason or another, or because there aren't enough subs to cover all the entries (I'm guessing that last part).
I can't answer most of your points, but I thought I would help with that one.

Now you have drawn the Editors attention to this entry, then I'm sure someone will be along to speak to you. I've never seen the Editors 'dismiss' anyone, and I doubt they will dismiss you.

Mina - many, many thanks for this. It feels like someone's on my side, emotionally at least. I'm quite cuddly really, quite friendlybut very incensed at the treatment I - and the researchers who helped me - got at the hands of the 'nameless',who dismissed the original so offensively, (and against all the remarks in the Peer Review), calling the original a philosophers' in-joke and alowing absolutely no discussion on the point.

If they'd suggested further improvements, I'd have happily considered them, as I did with every improvement suggested in the PR.

Sorry for going on again.

Many thanks for this help and emotional support - and for the information


Grime

Hello Grimethorpe! How the blazes are you? It's Sam, here. I've just read your post and I thought to myself a couple of things. Firstly, that you must have got out the wrong side of bed that morning (we all do it). Secondly, that you are indeed Franz Kafka! I am familiar with his work and your posting has the same sort of paranoid verve about it. Great stuff!

Let me explain: we took your entry from the Scout's recommended pile and edited it ourselves (instead of sending it out to a sub) because we needed to allocate artwork in advance. It meant that we could save time and plan ahead. The point is, we liked your entry so much that we decided to give it a picture! Your posting is *so* far from the truth that it's almost a work of art. When we hand-pick entries and edit them in-house we always (initially at least) use the h2g2 editors collective user number. There was absolutely nothing shady or bureaucratic about it at all.

On a lighter note, when you said that your entry had 'induced religious experiences in at least 2 h2g2 members. No wonder you're collectively scared of it. It's too real.' I felt cheated, not scared - I want a religious experience, too! I keep reading it, and nothing happens. Oh well. (If I read it backwards, do you think I'll have a satanic experience, instead?)

I personally look forward to seeing more of your entries in the Guide.

All the best to you.

Sam

Hi Sam,

OOPS!! It was Heidegger's Question, not my article as such that led (and can lead) to 'religious' experiences. That doesn't mean meeting Jesus or Buddha or having visions of angels. It means, as the article points out, perceiving the world in a totally new way. The two respondents who reported such experiences in my Conversations were one who suddenly saw the world in terms of freedom and possibilities all around them, and another who was beset by the question in a Quaker meeting.

The Question did have much more impact when it was marqueed. Could this not be restored?

You've guessed my RL identity. I AM Kafka. I faked my own death, like Elvis did. But I do get a bit grumpy now I'm now so old.

I wish I'd been contacted and told more a long time ago. I still don't like the practice of hiding behind 'h2g2' identities much. As it was, I was bound to get a bit paranoid as I'd had a sudden shock when my first version was peremptorily thrown out of Peer Review even though it had been universally approved there, and with a slur on my motives in doing the thing in the first place. I hate 'doing' philosophy just for the sake of it.

I think you're devilish enough already, so no need to read the article backwards.

Thanks for your message and explaining things,

Grime


Is it possible to re-marquee the Question?

Thank you very much indeed for getting back to me, Grimethorpe. Unfortunately, we can't marquee the Question (for an Edited Guide Entry) because it'll only appears in IE and I think we may be disabling this function soon anyway.

Anyway, as I said earlier, I enjoyed your revised entry immensely and I look forward to reading more of your stuff!

Take care for now,

Sam.