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

It worked -- your entry isn't in Peer Review anymore.

'That guy' was Hoovooloo (although I usually just shorten it to HVL because I'm lazy). I think HVL had some useful comments about your entry, but he does tend to word his comments in a way that can get people riled up.

My advice to you (if you're interested) would be that in the future on h2g2 (both in Peer Review and elsewhere) if someone says something that really gets your goat, you're probably better off just completely and utterly ignoring them than you are insulting them. If you insult them, then there are *always* going to be other people watching who will then be just as peeved at you as you were at him, which usually isn't worth it.


Mikey

"Sorry, H., but I've kinda stopped caring who likes my article"

This is going to sound stupid, but hey, you have to write to the level of your audience...

YOU wrote the article.

YOU put it in Peer Review - a forum solely about finding out what other people think of it.

If you've stopped caring what people think - take it out of Peer Review. Not too complicated.

"I took 8.6 minutes to write--and I particularly don't care about the oppinion of someone who gets so enraged over these little 'articles.'"

Who's enraged? Not me. There IS a single smiley in my post, but that was lamenting crap video games, and unrelated to your article. As far as it goes, what you wrote was OK. You put it in Peer Review, I assume, because you considered it ready for the Edited Guide, and wanted people to comment on it. If that is not the case, do try to read the f**king manual in future.

I'm not enraged, I'm amused. One more stereotyped ignorant Yank to take the p**s out of is something to celebrate.

"But a couple things..."

Counting not your strong point, obviously.

"-PS2 sucks. You suck."

Adult debating not your strong point either. (I'll bet something else ending in "-bating" IS a strong point of yours, though...)

"And do you know why? It's because you're british (with a lowercase b)."

Literacy not your strong point either, then.

"You think your oppinions matter."

Spelling not your strong point... do you HAVE any strong points?

"You don't realise how stupid you are."

Irony.

"Well, they don't and you are."

Thank you for your considered opinion.

"The three good things to come out of England were Monty Python, THHGG, and the Private Eye"

Thus neatly consigning to the dustbin of history Shakespeare, Isaac Newton, Noel Coward, Alan Turing, Terry Pratchett, Winston Churchill, Stephen Hawking, Gustav Holst, Charles Darwin, Patrick Stewart, John Constable, John Lennon, Billy Connolly, Ridley Scott, Dennis Potter, Eric Clapton, and a whole bunch of other people you've obviously never heard of.

Who said the American educational system was a worthless pile of shite? Not me.

"(hell, I get it shipped to the US!)."

Where I'm sure you understand every word.

"You're not on the list."

I'm distraught.

"-About the whole Duck-hunt thing. Sorry I confused your tiny excuse for a brain, but I was obviously talking about the Mario Brothers half."

Your apology for your inarticulate and ambiguous use of your native language is accepted.

"-Rare hasn't made a good game SINCE Goldeneye."

Um... did I say they had? Please, do point out which of the games I listed in their roster was released since Goldeneye.

"I'm terribly sorry"

Apology accepted.

"I misspoke (-typed?)--Europe hasn't made a good game since Goldeneye."

Again - how is this relevant? I mentioned Rare because (irony) they are relatively (altogether now...) RARE in that they are a globally successful developer based in Europe. If Europe produced *that* many *great* games, it wouldn't be worth mentioning.

I'm sorry you misunderstood that point so wildly.

I'm also sorry you've never played Tomb Raider, Black & White, Driver, Driver 2, Stuntman, The Getaway, Colin McCrae Rally, Starfox, Donkey Kong 64, Jet Force Gemini, WipEout, or any of the other 15% of the US game charts which are developed in the UK...

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/52627/ref%3Ded_cp__i_4_3/202-5457813-4262241

"-I'm getting bored."

So p**s off, pull your witterings out of Peer Review, and don't come back. I'm sure we'll miss you, and your wit, literacy, and above all, attention span.

H.

H, he already *did* take this out of PR, as you would have noticed had you a) read the posts or b) checked what forum this thread was currently in.

He took it out while I was writing that last post. I'm not able to bang out that much text in 8.6 minutes, I'm afraid, especially as I sometimes even take the trouble to think about what I'm writing.

But it's out of PR, so all's well that ends well.

H.

HVL, it was taken out of PR about 40 minutes ago -- check the timing on the posts.

Mikey, I don't want to teach my granny to suck eggs, here, or anything, but you've been on h2g2 longer than me so I'm a bit surprised you didn't understand what I just said.

So here it is again...

(the missing) Link42 posted his delightful rebuttal of my comments.

Three minutes thereafter, I clicked "Reply", and started typing.

AT THAT POINT the entry was still in PR.

While I was doing that, you suggested he remove the entry from PR.

After a brief exchange, it was done.

Some time shortly after that, I finished typing my reply and hit "Post". I then discovered that my posting had been slightly overtaken by events.

When I *started* my reply, the entry was still in PR. It was out by the time I'd finished, but I only found that out AFTER I'd hit "Post". OK?

Like I said - all's well that ends well.

H.

Sorry -- you're the one who had claimed that it had taken you 8.6 minutes to write the post. Given when that post was made, add 8.6 minutes to that, and it's still considerably after the entry was withdrawn from Peer Review. Of course, it's possible that you were simply lying about the 8.6 minutes for effect, but I tend to assume that you are being accurate.

I said:

"I'm not able to bang out that much text in 8.6 minutes, I'm afraid".

Do please note the short but crucial word "not" in that sentence.

You said:

"you're the one who had claimed that it had taken you 8.6 minutes to write the post."

Now, to me, the first sentence has only one possible interpretation: Link42 claimed to have written his article in 8.6 minutes (yeah, right), whereas, since I cannot type that fast, especially if I actually think about what I'm writing and bother to spell it correctly, it took me MUCH LONGER to write my posting.

Since this has now descended to farcical levels of incomprehension, I'm going to unsubscribe.

H.