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

I would have to say there is a difference between expecting certain standards of debate and "thick skinnedness" on "The Forum" from "H2G2 in general". This is an important difference to note.

<>

Yeah sure . . .

And while we're off topic, in Spain the 'z' and 'c' are not always pronounced as 'th', Blathers. In the south it's often an 's' sound like in central/south american Spanish.


az

Re: JtP:

<> (amorphous)

Well, he once stalked me on my photo gallery, a site outside h2g2 - the sicko. But other than that and posting his constant journal entries, he also started many conversation threads on Ask h2g2.

Which could not be left unchallenged. No way.

You don't like it? Gee, too bad. I prefer to see someone like him shown up for the bigotted hateful piece of work he is . . . you apparently would prefer something else. Like we should all go out for tea sometime?


az

>>"So he picked on a deluded person with the purpose of hounding them off the site. And just happened to enjoy it."

Now, I didn't say what his motives *were*, I merely pointed out that it wasn't a simplistic either/or situation as your original comments risked being read as suggesting.
I was merely offering another *possibility* for consideration, with possibly the implicit suggestion that since it wasn't an either/or question, then there may well have been yet further explanations.

Obviously, in practice a great many decisions aren't down to a single reason, but a complex blend which even the decider may not be completely aware of.
"What's the reason for X" is both a question, and a statemnt that there is *one* reason, or at least one overwhelming reason.

In any case, why should a useful task like encouraging JtP to leave be devoid of enjoyment?

>>"When Hoovooloo was 'suspended' from the site I happened to think that a deeply unpleasent and bigoted individual had been told to £$&! off somewhere else. And it's my feeling I wasn't alone in that, but I can't say I've ever canvassed for opinion."

Well, you're entitled to your opinion.
Personally, I find Hoo operates much of the time somewhere around what I would consider my own personal limits, and sometimes goes much further than that, not always for any reason obvious to me.
However, I don't feel I'm in the privileged position of saying that my own personal limits need be the ones other people must adhere to or risk having their postings considered 'unmutual'.
If someone has said something I disagree with, I may well choose to reply, though I *personally* do try to at least limit things in terms of escalation.

There's a large difference between thinking "I wouldn't have said that" and saying "you shouldn't have said that".

Also, maybe it's just me, but even if I think someone has been overly strident, my language-processing neurocircuits don't seem to get suddenly so overwhelmed that I am unable to extract some meaning from what has been written, though that would seem to be an affliction claimed by more than one person around here.

>>"I think Hoovooloo and others like him have appointed themselves as defenders of the intellectual purity of h2g2"

Does Hoo prowl the lairs of the txtspkrs correcting their spelling mistakes, or pointing out the inanity of what they would consider 'conversation'?

If someone puts forward a badly-phrased and ill-thought out argument based on ignorance, whether someone replies cautiously pointing all the mistakes, or says "What a load of nonsense", aren't both people equally guilty of 'defending intellectual purity' in the sense of not accepting poor arguments?
Surely it's the *style* of the defence in a particular small corner of h2g2 that some people don't like, not the fact that that defence happens at all?

<>

Yes.

<>

He came to an article I wrote. I can't find it, but I'm pretty sure I responded to one of his journals somewhere. It was my understanding that these are perfectly acceptable places for disagreement. In fact, I understand that visiting another's U-space is another perfectly acceptable practice. You may understand differently, but you would be wrong.

<>

I wouldn't know. I'm not intimately knowledgeable regarding the capabilities of the average fool.

<>

Maybe one or two. If you're attempting to lump me in with people who hounded him at every turn, you're going to find yourself mistaken. I had very little to do with him.

<>

See above.

<>

I'm not quite stupid enough to think one approach is the best one in every instance. Are you?

I certainly felt that the approach was appropriate for the situation at hand, as, apparently, you feel that stereotyping everyone in this forum and writing to us as if you were our nanny and we're a bunch of bad little kiddies is the appropriate approach here.

>>"Do you think that the approach you used against Justin the Preacher is an one appropriate to for use against anyone who's view you don't like?"

I think the approach most people had was appropriate for JtP.
I don't think *most* people here are simplistic enough to have two mental categories of 'like' and 'don't like', with the response to all people in the latter being identical.

>>"I'm sure Justin the Preacher thought he was bringing a gift of his own to people and that they were failing to appreciate it."

Well, the sooner he realised the strength of unappreciation, the sooner he might choose to go elsewhere.

>>"And Justin the Preacher's behavior wasn't alone in being motivated by a sense of being superior to the damned masses."

a) Did anyone say it was?
b) I don't think people were bothered so much by his *motivation* as by what he said.

>>"And if others are sensitive to that rudeness [why does ensitive equate with idiot in you're idiolect anyway?] the you acting as a detriment to the wider community."

Did I say sensitive==idiot?
Did I even imply it?
In any case, unless 'the wider community' (whoever they are) are commonly sensitive, I'm struggling to see how what you said makes sense.

Further to post 46, results:

Posts complained about: 13
Posts removed: 4.

Which may be considered possibly reasonable.

SoRB

Ach, bollosk. Note to self - check who's logged in before you post...

SoRB

You're going to give Alex a bad name if you keep that up.

I just had a look on that thread. Several things removed temporarily anyhow - was only one yours?


az

"Your opinion, to which you're entitled. Duly noted. One point: I was not *told* to f**k off. I was forced to, not offered a choice. That's all."

I was using the phrasing from Potholers post.
I was aware yiou forced to, not repeat of your 'histrionic' self-imposed exile from an ealier time.

"I do not have, and have no wish for, a fan club. Frankly, I take the opprobrium of certain people as an indicator I'm doing something right."

So do I, I one of the traits we share that I don't try to restrain in myself.

"Then you're wrong. I have no such high-minded ideas. I'd just like to think that in ONE place it would be possible to have conversations unpolluted by shrieking children. Is that too much to ask?"

What I said wasn't an allusion to any ultruistic priciple, but a self-serving one.
This is the lack of balance that trouble me. In a community where it isn't up to you decide who qualifies as a shrieking child and there is room outside of it for you to invite those you meet within who you deign to approve of to join you...
Do you really need to 'smack' the "shrieking children" why do you have to sink beneath the level of the shrieking child when you are capable of creating authority with more honied words?

"Ah, supreme ignorance. It usually turns up, and here it is. If there's anyone here who is under NO illusions about the relationship between this site and its users, it's me. I'll bore on for as long as you like to anyone who will listen that any ideas about "freedom of speech", user input or any of that happy clappy crap are at best an illusion here. This site is NOT a democracy, it's a dictatorship. No user, no matter how much they may have contributed to the site in the past, is of any more value to it than someone who turns up, posts the word "F**k" and leaves. This fact is demonstrated again and again, and I've pointed it out again and again. To suggest I have any sense of ownership over this place is laughable."

I should have phrased that better. You don't have any illusions about the greater relationship between you and the site. But would you really be happy about with a democractic site were all those shrieking children were able to exert their influences.
You say you don't want a fan club, but you clearly crave some external validation for your contributions you seem to want influence over the site proportional to your own idea of your potentional significance and your using the freedoms you do have to try and affect the chareacter of the place by smacking those shrieking kiddies.

"I *do* think there is a problem with the site. That these fragile emotional and intellectual weaklings turn up here, treat the place as though it is their personal therapist and support system, then get all whiny when *horrors* it turns out that there are people here who don't get all huggy when they behave unreasonably. And worse, they are indulged, not just by other users but by the site as a whole.

This site is many things, but it is NOT, never was and never will be a PTSD survivor support network, a safe house for child abuse victims, or a talking shop for sufferers of domestic violence. The internet is stuffed with such sites, but this is not one of them and it consistently baffles me that people cannot or will not accept or understand that simple fact."

I'll just pretend to be your therapist for moment...
And you don't talk about your problems here do you Hoo? Because that woulde be weak of you, wouldn't it? And you're afraid of being weak? And you want control... You want to control others people behaviour but you get frustrated if someone like those appointed try to control yours.
You need to grow-up Hoo, this site isn't your little fortress of solitude and solace from a world full of people that don't know what you know - not anymore than this place is anyone's therapist.

This a community and as far as the BBC let's it this place what the people here make it. You don't want less control from the PTB you just want your own brand of control.

The Guide to life the universe and everything is a concept that clearly has room for 'life' so stop whining about it when people create places on the site to talk about life experiences, be it journals or surviver forums, or even talking about the experiences in their life which have shaped who they are and how they view the universe when offering opinions.
You are suffering from a failure to understand that life isn't clean and free of errors of judgement or feelings. It's a topic for discussion in itself.

The site is created from the contributions of the community and like a community iot will evolve and mutate.

The site was about letting people develope their own styles of writing by learning through discussion with their 'peers'. Stop mewling about it when people don't suddenly see the light and adopt the manner you have fixated upon as the only way.

"All I (and I hope it's not out of turn to speak for the "others like" me) and those others want is this tiny, little corner of h2g2 to be able to continue having grownup conversations without having them dragged offtopic and ruined by whining self-centred children."

The way you treat other people to me is a sign of your own childish selfcenteredness.
Who defines off-topic?

"*I* don't go polluting Askh2g2 or MiscChat with heavyweight political or ethical questions. I don't barge in on other people's convs in those fora and post offtopic rants about my personal problems. If I did, I'd expect short shrift. But try giving the Usual Suspects short shrift, and what do I get? It's *my* fault for not being "sensitive". Well f**k that, and f**k them."

I've been subscribed to The Forum since pretty much since Acid Overide created the page... I don't remember the last time anyone barged in talking about personal problems.
This thread wasn't about the forum it was about a DNA community issue, now your trying to paint yourself as someone who only wants one little part of h2g2 to conform to your agenda. If thatr was the case then there was nothing to stop you writing a journal about issues you only want to discuss with the friends you approve of.

Your 'f**k them' attitude and manner doesn't just affect you and the people your directly applying it to.
Your a usual suspect. You derail threads by getting hostile with people.
Your making the site unpleasent for people that don't subscribe to your agenda deliberately is more self-indulgent than any of the attempts to have a discussion and talk to others to whom an issue relivent as well that just happens to irrelivent to you.

And *you* seem to be over-reacting. Chill . . . it's only a website . . .


az

nice one az

See I am keeping on topic

(And telling diphthong jokes Thanks for that ... had to stare at it for a bit, mind).

It's better when spoken out loud

Hmmm, one thing SoRB does not do is derail threads - that would defeat the object of him putting over his 'agenda' as if he had one. Oh yes, I believe he has: open, robust challeging debate that never suffers fools gladly. And he expects nothing less in return



That's "you're making..."



And this really comes back to the crux of the whole thing. You are using the phrase 'subscribe to your agenda'. Again, if the agenda is to have open, honest, robust and logical debate rather than wishy-washy illogical spoutings then I will certainly subscribe.

If you have read the articles Ben has put together on why people stay here one of those reasons is that it challenges and changes ones views and also improves ones debating style so that you cannat have you arguments and point ripped apart.

In the real world, people will challenge you by spouting rubbish or being overly robust. This virtual world is a great place to learn how to cope with that and learn about yourself.

So, if people want a fluffy unchallenging chat then there are parts of this sites that allow that but on the whole you will get strong discussion and I have seen many contributers come into this place waffling rubbish, get challenged by it but become excellent contributors to the site and, I always hope, a more logical and well-rounded person in real life.

SO, you may think a lot of chat is self-indulgent on this site. I tend to view that as comments from people who,deep down, do not get the level of discussion that is goiong on around here and if that is the case then that is not the problem of the people posting in 'self-indulgence' here.

A lot of mental masturbation does go on around here but I view that as carrying on the spirit of DNA who wrote books full of the stuff!!!

<>

I can think of very few things that would be MORE offensive than attempting to psychoanalyze someone based on the limited information you have here. As Ben says, anything you say at this point will say more about you than it does about Roj.

<>

And apparently she's right. I don't see Roj attempting to control the behavior of others in this thread. I see only one person attempting that. I'll give you a hint... that person is quoted above. A second hint... it's not Ben.

Everybody has their own agenda, and like their decisions, they don't necessarily fully understand it.

Robust debate, I personally agree with completely, on the grounds that wool acts as a barrier to enlightenment.

I'd appreciate it if posts were previewed: this could show in fewer spelling mistakes, and might lead to more considered views.

"mental masturbation" This, i must see.

*reminds self to preview*

NH

<< very definitely offend people (especially our Christian brethren).

I expect this change is in response Tony's law on inciting hatred against his worshippers, sorry, I mean against his God's worshippers.

Imagine how much worse it could be for me if I was an argumentative sod? Oh cr*p... caught again.

Hey Hoo, fancy a game of "poke the Della/Andrew S/Insight until they squeal 'Teacher'"?>>

No, Math, much as you'd like to, and have tried over the years, you have never provoked me or Andrew! (Insight maybe, but then he is a kid, and he gets dealt an awful lot of sh*te her, very unfairly.)

You know full well, I have *never* yikesed a post by you! Ever... Druid though you are.

Ah well.
It would appear, perhaps, that I have managed to mean what I say and not say what I mean.
Tsk.