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

I'm not reading any of the other threads attached to this one. People who prefer Patchett should be saying so on a website started by him, not picking yet another brick out of the monument to DNA's genius.

Ah, so this is what you get if you take one h2g2-er and remove their open-mindedness.

Yup. The site shows signs of imminently disappearing and I'm surprised that the powers that be should be helping it on its way

>>>'The site shows signs of imminently disappearing'

Where? Everything that's going on 'behind the scenes' at the moment is to ensure the future and growth of this website.

Hmm .... I am very sceptical there, Dr J - I read something else between the lines.

First of all let me just say, i think this is a stupid question because both writers have their merits. Both writers have their weaknesess. I won't go into those here but neither writer can possibly be judged in comparison with the other. What these two writers have in common is they are both lntelligent, unique humourists. Neither of them sit neatly within the confines of the genres they are often associated with. But as far as i'm aware neither of them approached writing as a competive sport or have ever considered themselves in competition with each other. I doubt Douglas Adams ever sat down to write thinking,"Pratchett, that upstart, i'll show him a thing or two about this here writing!" So why even pose the question in such a crude way?

On the other hand, i find this "......monument to DNA's genius" quite an alarming reaction to an attempt [be it a slightly odd one] to stirr up a little debate. One of the things that attracted me to this site is reading DNA's original vision of h2g2. I got the impression he wanted h2g2 to be a place where people could freely discuss ideas, be they new or old, be they scientific or otherwise. As far as i can tell, h2g2 was never intended to be a 'fanatical fan' site.

Douglas Adams seemed impressed by the scientific method. The scientific method questions everyting, nothing is sacred! Nothing can be proved or disproved without being subjected to rigid questioning. This includes the ldeas of the man himself. I once had the good fortune to hear Douglas Adams speak to a packed lecture hall. At the end of his talk, which covered many topics, ranging from new technology to evolutionary theory, he was happy to debate his ideas. Thankfully no one stood up in the middle of it and shouted "How dare you question the great man you sacrilegious swine, begone and never cast a shadow accross his path again, why, you pick yet another brick out of the monument to DNA's genius". Had they done so, i think he may have been alarmed and considered the employ of a large man to deal with the 'Potential stalker element'.

DNA's 'genius' is such that it needs no monument built to it by you, me or any other daft bugger with a computer and too much time on their hands. The monument is his life and his work. 'Nuff said.