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

Anyone want to comment on this entry?

Researcher PSG

You might want to reference this at the beginning:
A315893 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' - the TV Series

Researcher PSG

Not so sure rather keep the refferences to Buffy at a bare minimum. Main point in mentioning it at all was to make sure people are clear that this isn't about Buffy.

Oh, its just a point of protocol really. Generally if you mention something that has a edited guide entry you link to it. Also its useful for someone in the back of beyond who may never have heard of Buffy to know what sort of thing the entry isn't related to.

Researcher PSG

so I guess KevinM that you would be changing 'magick' to 'magic'?

Hi, I'm new here, and my pedantic ways took over. Here are some spelling and typo suggestions for the middle section, under their paragraph headings. There were others but I wasn't sure enough to include them. Please feel free to correct my corrections.
I enjoyed this very informative and ambitious piece, Good Luck Kevin

Satan:
Namely thein Antichrist of Revelation. > the ?
two deserve special mention the Malleus Malleficarum > mention;
preformed by these witches > performed
structured with in the > within
Of these two are particularly signifigant > Of these, two are particularly > significant
the presence of the demonic to quickly > too
According to the ritual no exorcism > According to the ritual, no exorcism

Modern Demonology
(some where between > somewhere
have certain methods to resort to provoke spiritual activity > resort to to provoke

Invitation
the human world with out > without
by direct request for a spirits presence > spirit's presence

Infestation
considerably greater power then ghosts > than
it terrifies a person to badly, > too
to focus its attention on usually some one > attention on, usually > someone

Oppression
(the difference in a moment will be covered in a moment) > (the difference will be covered in a moment)
from that person support structure > from that person's support structure

Possession
the spirit only is there from time to time in possession that spirit > the spirit is only there from time to time, in possession that spirit
one can argue till their blue in the fact > one can argue till they're blue in the > face

Hello.

Hmmm... This is a nice piece, Kevin. However, I'd be more comfortable with some more emphasis on the fact that all of this so-called demonology is based on pure guesswork. But that is just me.

I also miss the mention of the 'erroneously burnt at the stake'- cases. That is, 99% of the cases where 'demonologists' failed. People were often declared possessed by a devil (e.g. alchemists and witches) and murdered. The real reason was in most cases a lot more mundane (knowing something, owing money, just to make an example) - It's just that 'being posessed by a demon' was a more convincing argument with the ignorant in these days.

Well, then again, this is just me...

One passage, right in the beginning I thought read strange, or maybe I just didn't get it:


"This entry is an examination of the history and modern practice of demonology as it applies to the real world."

What do you mean with applies to the real world? Like there are demons in the real world? Or like getting to understand the folks who believe demons exist, in order to help them? Or both?



Whatever... Good luck with this one.


HELL


PS: You could add a link to: A673454 - Modern Satanic Cults
PPS: Ouch! 'Magick'! But we had that already

Lets see your mistakes from the beginning.
Demonology is based on pure guesswork: no. The body of knowledge is based primarily on several thousand years of theological texts from across the world. You can argue these texts are fantasy but the fact they exist gives it as solid a basis as any other branch of theology(and far more sound then many).
Secondly witch hunters were not demonologists. Exorcists and demonologists are NOT the same thing either and witch hunters weren't really exorcists either.

Hell, your points were made earlier in the PR thread eg posts 5, 24, 75.

Kevin I think this desribes quite carefully what some people believe, as opposed to what is generally accepted as fact.

However there are a few phrasings that will still irritate the sceptic eg "magicK" (but Hell see post 17 for Kevin's rationale) and in the description of arch devils "On the rare occasions they manifest into the physical world destruction ensues on a major scale."

It might be better to assert that "Destruction on a major scale has been attributed to the manifestation of arch devils into the physical world." Otherwise researchers will reasonably ask 'name an example that was the result of arch devils'

Pimms

Sorry if I was redundant, I didn't go through the Entire backlog.

As to magicK (UNK) I have made postings in other threads stating that this irritates *me* personally, but I think I have to accept it.

Kevin: I didn't mean witches and alchemists are demonologists, but the people accusing them use, or abuse, demonologist tactics. I.e. saying thy're posessed. Also you say Exorcists (some of which are, or were witch hunters) are a kind of demonologist in your Entry.

There are many instances in cultural history that state witches have 'a relationship' with the devil.

Guesswork: Again, this was just *me* saying I'd be more comfortable with a bit more of 'distance'. In my opinion this is guesswork, to some people this is absolute reality. Maybe we can find a formulation in the middle that leaves all of us happy. On the other hand, I am *not* saying that this is Entry no-go because of that remark. It's just a feeling I have. If you don't want to go into my direction, fine. This is your Entry.

And I honestly wish you good luck with it.

HELL

Honestly its impossible to make every one happy on a subject like this. People hate the idea of demons. There are people who will happily accept any bit of psuedo scientific dribble you feed them who instantly tune out when they hear the word demon because they consider the concept "christian." Look at how popular parapsychology is today and frankly its grounds are weaker then demonology(demonology at least has physical objects to study(the bible, allegedly possesed people, ancient grimoires) in over a century we are still waiting for some thing of any substance ouf of parapsychology yet people challenged me earlier for calling it questionable. Demonology is a branch of theology first and foremost. ITs a study of the lore regarding evil. Believe that lore is pure fiction or not the fact is it exists.

Yes some witch hunters were exorcists and yes exorcists can be a branch of demonologist(many aren't). The Witch hunters were by in large not demonologists(with a few exceptions Kramer and Speigel come to mind).

OK, so we have an official response to end that magic/magick debate.

for details see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alaba...thread=476355&post=5795640#p5795356

'You are allowed to use the word 'magick' once, to make whatever point clear, add a disclaimer, but stick to 'magic' throughout the remaining Entry.'

Now that this is clear, we can go on talking about the Entry proper...

HELL

I'd forgotten about this entry. Here are some more things to be sorted out.

Your comment "the only thing that to my knowledge has never been reported in a documented case is the girls head spinning completely around a feature that’s improbable at best considering the nature of human anatomy" is not acceptable because you mention yourself. I'd suggest simply saying:

(with the possible exception of the girl's head spinning all the way around)


Some typos:

Sumaria --> Sumeria

You have both Malleficarum and Mallefecarum. I assume only one of these is correct.

preformed by these witches --> performed by these witches

signifigant --> significant

to not assume the presence of the demonic to quickly --> to not assume the presence of the demonic too quickly

for such phenomenon --> for such phenomena

1990's --> 1990s

some where between seven and ten --> somewhere between seven and ten

with an eye to remove malevolent entities --> with an eye to removing malevolent entities

1800's --> 1800s

terrifies a person to badly --> terrifies a person too badly

some one who spends --> someone who spends

all of these phenomenon --> all of these phenomena

fall beyond the preview of established science --> fall beyond the purview of established science

one can argue till their blue in the fact --> one can argue until one is blue in the face

its not even remotely established --> it's not even remotely established

they require demonstratable phenomenon --> they require a demonstrable phenomenon

Its believed that spirits --> It's believed that spirits

have you looked at the typos yet ?

Only just got my comp back will be doing so with in the next month or so.

OK, just when you get a chance

Researcher PSG

sorry if i'm covering old ground here, don't have time to read the entire conversation, just I didn't understand "Namely thein Antichrist of Revelation." what is thein?

otherwise, it is very impressive.

Sorry typo should just be the Antichrist of Revelation. Thanks for the vote of confidence.

So you're still working on this?

After not looking at this for several months, I re-read it this morning and started noting some typos and other things that needed clarification. I only got through the section on the History of Demonology, but here's what I found:

Pre Christian History
--It is known that almost every known culture >> Almost every known culture
--what gods they serve >> who serves? The people of the early cultures or the malevolent forces? Perhaps try: "The gods of many early cultures were seen as beings to be appeased, not loving parental figures."
--which philosopher you asked >> which pholosopher you consult - can't really ask most of them anymore, can you?
--Some considered them a guardian spirit >> some considered them guardian spirits
--comes out of the religions of Zoroastrianism and Judaism >> Comes out of Zoroastrianism and Judaism. Also, this paragraph doesn't explain what Zoroastrianism contributed to demonology.

Christian Demonology
--Should have a comma after footnote 1
--two deserve special mention the Malleus Malleficarum and the Compendium Mallefecarum. >> special mention: the Malleus Malleficarum and the Compendium Mallefecarum.
--Exorcism also was first formally structured with in the Roman Catholic Church during the Middle Ages. >> This sentence would probably fit better with the last paragraph.
--While its core prayers are as old as the office itself, in the 16th century the Catholic Church first published its formal ritual in the "Rituale Romanum." >> This refers to excorcism? Maybe "While the core prayers to perform an excorcism are as old as the office of Excorcist itself..."
--This ritual included ... as well as twenty-one separate specific recommendations and requirements for the ritual. >> can drop the last three words as it says the ritual included requirements for the ritual.
--Of these two are >> Of these, two are
--to quickly >> too quickly

I also re-read the entire PR thread, and noticed several items that have been mentioned three times or more that still haven't been corrected. Perhaps when making corrections you should go back to the beginning of this discussion and just go down the lists. Let us know when everything's been fixed up and we'll take another look at it .

Hoping to see this in the Guide soon!