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

Well, no actually.

The purpose of Peer Review is that your good work is made better by the input and suggestion of your peers. In the two years that I've been a Scout I can think of only one entry that made it through review without a single comment as to how the entry could be made better.

I'm aware that some folk are nervous about putting their work forward. We do seen to have acquired a fearsome reputation from somewhere. But in all honesty, if you've read the guidelines first, and your entry follows those and is in the spirit of h2g2. Then you shouldn't have too much of a rough ride.

Don't flatter yerself darlin'. Most of us have dealt with people in PR who are far more recalcitrant, far more stroppy, far less able to deal with criticism, and in some cases, downright bloody insane. I reckon we'll manage.

Have you looked at this thread?


The title of the entry is BP's role in guiding for a start


And let me tell you this the history of guiding is something I know an awlful lot about.

And BP is known as Guiding UK's founder, not his sister, not his wife, they are know for taking care of the guiding side, but not founding it!!!!!

But it seems that nothing I say matters one little Dot to these people.

Yes of course I've read it: both the thread and the entry itself.

Mikey and Cyzaki's comments about the focus of the entry are totally valid. But if you don't want to carry on with the entry in the light of their suggestions, then that is entirely up to you.

She is right Gents.. BP did create the Guiding Movement.

BP held a rally at Crystal Palace and was approached by some girls calling themselves Girl Scouts.

He asked his sister to adapt his book "Scouting for Boys".. and came up with the name Girl Guides.

Mizzp has done her research, she needs help in pulling it altogether for the guide.


*ducks below the parapet again*

http://www.girlguiding.org.uk/xq/asp/sID.352/qx/new/about/article.asp


I think you should read that from girlguiding uk's website, it clearly states that BP formed the Girl Guide movement and that he asked his sister to look after that side of things, which is what I have stated!!!!!

I have no doubt that you're right, lil ol' me. However, the entry, when first presented to PR, was poorly written and poorly structured. It was coming along nicely though when MizzPinky stamped her little foot and removed it from PR. The EG has lost out on a potentially good entry, but it will survive. If she decides to resubmit to PR, I for one will not be holding any grudges because of her behaviour in this, or her previous PR thread, which went along exactly the same lines. I'll look at the entry and give what I consider to be helpful advice or criticism.

I haven't stamped my little foot at all

U've withdrawn it because the entry is about BP's role in guiding and people are saying that no he was not the founder of guiding that it was infact his sister and his wife

If you look at the link I have provided you will see that this is not the opinion of girlguiding UK!!!!!!


AND THAT IS WHY I HAVE WITHDRAWN IT

MP, I don't think that any of us doubt that BP founded the Guides; the problem has been that your entry when it first showed up in PR was completely unfocused and lacking in structure. It has come on in leaps and bounds and is now looking pretty good. You will have to decide whether or not you want it to be in the EG.

Did you read mikeys post?


That is why it's been withdrawn,

>"And BP is known as Guiding **UK's** founder"

I think that is what Mikey was asking you to clarify Mizzpinky...that's easily done by using UK in the title, and in the Entry.

If I've misunderstood Mikey, that's no big deal, I'll survive it.

(This is bound to be a simpost. )

Emmily

I have no problem with putting UK in the title

Yes, I read Mikey's post, but since I know next to nothing about this subject I was in no position to offer an opinion or any information - that's why I've commented so far on the format and structure of the entry rather than on the content.

If you had posted that link or at least put up a cogent argument against Mikey's assertion, such that her points were disproved, we would still be commenting upon the entry rather than upon your actions.

because I just can't be bothered to argue with you lot

look there is three of you in here now and all because of one comment I made


Guys this is ment to be fun not a long hard slog of having to prove points. Thats what Pi$$ed me off last time. All I seemed to be doing was pointing things out all the time and it sucks all the fun out of it.

I thought as scouts you were surposed to scout out info, it was quite easy for one of you to check out girlguiding uk's website and to see what they had to say on the matter

"And BP is known as Guiding **UK's** founder"

I think that is what Mikey was asking you to clarify Mizzpinky...that's easily done by using UK in the title, and in the Entry".

As both Scouting and Guiding were started in the UK, IMO MP does not need to specify 'UK' in the title".

s

*decides to run with him*

"because I just can't be bothered to argue with you lot"
That's how PR works - you submit an entry, someone questions something you've written, you argue your case cogently or provide proof that you are right.

"Guys this is ment to be fun not a long hard slog of having to prove points"
It *is* about proving points because we're building something - the EG - that contains facts, is informative, and truthful. You were correct in your assertion the BP founded the Guides.

"I thought as scouts you were surposed to scout out info"
No, that's your job as a Researcher - we're volunteers with our own lives to lead. Speaking of which, I've got to catch a bus to work

*keeps hold of the elastic in MP's knickers*..

Whoa girl.. don't run too far!!