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

Why not go out and shout at some strangers in the street?

(It works for me )

One of my ancestors actually was hung for stealing a on a Sunday. (True - this was in Edinburgh in the early 19thC). If he'd done it any other day of the week he'd have been transported to Australia.


It's not that I don't sympathise with your frustrations with (ahem) wooly thinking, FM, because I do. I think part of the problem is tht although you don't make ad hominem comments, people take ad opum comments as much to heart. Not everyone sees the boundaries that clearly.

Anyways, I really should be working.

B

The trouble is, is that until recently, the sort of material that I made those ad opum comments about has not really been challenged in any way. But you have been very quick to leap to the defence of some people who have taken it upon themselves to persecute Creationists on this site for their views. At least my comments are restricted to entries in PR.

>> But you have been very quick to leap to the defence of some people who have taken it upon themselves to persecute Creationists on this site for their views. At least my comments are restricted to entries in PR.

Which? What? Where?

(Should that be Witch wot were? )

Seriously, have I defended people for their persecution of creationists?

I have had rows onsite and off with Hoo-as-was for his treatment of JtP, for example. I find creationists as exasperating as anyone else does, ("you can believe in evolution if you like" has become one of my most frequently quoted examples of a category error), and I have prodded and probed their thinking in much the way I have prodded and probed yours. But I don't think I have either persecuted them or been involved in coversations where I have let aggressive persecution of them go unchallenged.

*worried now*

B

I just wanted to say that emotional pain is subjective as well as physical pain. You can't say to someone 'you're not in very much pain, most people who have this operation don't need morphine' If someone tells you they are in physical pain they are.

Well, you were very quick to leap to his defence when I said what I thought of him. You can't have it both ways.

Can't I?

Damn!

However, if we are talking about Hoo-as-was and creationists, then I stand by the fact that I found his persecution of JtP offensive in the extreme, and I challenged him about it on-site (a bit) and off-site (a lot).

I tend to duck out of conversations with creationists because I find the conversations themselves offensive and ultimately sterile and boring. Likewise I dropped out of the FFFF and other places where those conversations tend to happen.

I honestly don't think I have endorsed anyone persecuting creationists, (though Della, bless her, used to consider me to be a hater-of-Christians on he basis that I stated a couple of times that I am afraid of them).

To be honest, because "Ben's a creationist-basher" is the sort of meme I'd like to squash, so I'd appreciate it if you could withdraw the remark or else find a link and substantiate it.

I do accept that I've supported Hoo-as-was in my time. But I have most definitely challenged him too. I have also supported Della on the few occasions she talked sense, and I've almost certainly supported you on occasion too FM.

I call it as I see it, and don't blindly say my-friend-right-or-wrong.

Ben

F19585?thread=645850&skip=77&show=20

Is what I presume FM is talking aobut.

Whilst there was a fair bit of slavish anti and pro SoRB/Hoo positions going on I think B was reasonably balanced to be honest.

I on the other hand was anything but looking back

Yeah, it was an odd thread, that one. That was the "creationists abuse children's minds and destroy their intellectual futures" thread, wasn't it?

It was another one where people reacted to what they thought they'd read, (viz the difference between ad hominem remarks and ad opum ones mentioned earlier) and not to what they actually read.

If you read it, FM, you can see that I supported his ban, and skimming the thread I find I criticised his creationist-bashing habits and the Della-bashing too. I don't think I endorsed his bullying of other researchers any more than I endorse yours or Hell's or anyone else's. (It's ok for me to bully other researchers of course because - "I state my mind, you post forcefully, he bullies the innocent" )

In fact it was Hoo-as-was to whom I addressed the phrase "we are not socially inadequate turing machines" in an email sometime towards the end of 2001. So even though I'll accept I come across as a Hoo-supporter, I'm comfortable that I am also a Hoo-criticiser as well.

Thinking about it, I haven't seen him for ages, is he still online that much?

Ben

ME? Bullying? Where? When?

"I don't think I endorsed his bullying of other researchers any more than I endorse yours or Hell's or anyone else's."

HELL

Hell, no, you are right Hell. I haven't seen you bullying.



While I am eating humble-pie, I haven't actually seen FM bully in PR either, and was responding to his views about truth and brutality. So, to FM too.

Ben

Well, I may be a bear, but I hate bullies. I also wouldn't lump you in with the creationist-bashers. I tend to regard creationists as silly, misguided people but at some point I accept may have to the barricades against them. But it will be down at the local school, not on hootoo.

I may be brusk and shortspoken sometimes. And I also think that those folks who post predictably controversial/biased/inflamatory stuff to PR shouldn't be such wimps when the postings get less fluffy.

HELL

I hope that puts the lid on this discussion and nails it very firmly shut.

Probably not, Oojakapiv - you didn't answer any of my direct questions addressed to you, but that is your priviledge, of course.

>> And I also think that those folks who post predictably controversial/biased/inflamatory stuff to PR shouldn't be such wimps when the postings get less fluffy.

Hell, there is a difference between putting off newbies and dealing with trolls. Newbies by definition don't know from experience what is expected of them in PR. Sure, they can read the Guidelines, and probably should. But there is a huge amount of reading material about how to use the site, and it is no wonder that many don't actually read it all.

Treating newbies as if they are trolls really doesn't help.

I also don't think using the term 'fluffy' helps. 'Fluffy' suggests something insubstantial, like a cloud, or overly sweet but insubstantial, like candy-floss.

How about 'diplomatic'? Or 'polite'? Or 'courteous'?

I still, personally, can see no reason at all for bad manners and discourtesy in Peer Review, any more than it is acceptable in the AWW. As I said - rigour and good manners are not opposite ends of the same thing.

Ben

Unless anyone has posted while I'm writing, this will be post 137. I don't see any point in or have any intention of dragging this out any further than the end of this LED.

Your questions:

Are you advisers?
If people want advice and/or are willing to accept advice, I will gladly give it to the best of my ability.

Are you mentors?
See question 1.

Are you teachers?
Not specifically, but since giving advice and mentoring both involve imparting knowledge, which is what teaching also does, then by inference, we are teachers.

Are they customers?
No. A customer is not a part of the organisation from which they are receiving a good or a service. People in Peer Review are members of h2g2 and therefore are part of the organisation. Bt submitting an entry, they also become a member of PR.

Are they juniors?
No.

Are they punters?
I don't know exactly what you mean by 'punters'.

How do you see yourself, and how do you see them?
I can't even begin to answer those two questions. No really - I don't know where to begin. Honestly. Every single PR thread is different and so is every single Researcher.

One final word. I know that I do bloody good work in PR - Researchers, fellow Scouts and the Editors have told me so, and so has my intuition. My methods - the "terrible lists" to quote one correspondent - might not be to some people's taste, but it's how I work, it gets results, and most people have no problem with it. 99% of the time I'm perfectly nice to people. Do you read all those threads Ben? Have you followed every one of them? Are you intimate with my entire body of work in PR over the past three years and change?

The 1% of the time when I let fly, I've promised to curtail. Let that be an end to it.

You can raise your hands to heaven and say what you like Ben, I don't give a monkey's - I already have my answer from the people I deal directly with as a Scout and a reviewer.

I deserve better than that Oojakapiv.

You know fine I don't hang out in PR, because I have 'fessed up to that on numerous occasions, so there really isn't anything to be gained by asking what my PR credentials are. You know what they are, same as everyone else in this thread does.

I don't hang out in PR, so I have never been in a position to attack anyone for any specific behaviour there. I haven't attacked anyone for their behaviour in PR. I have questioned the attitudes expressed by people about PR in this thread, and that is just about all I have done here. If it wasn't posted here, I haven't challenged it.

I did once, as I said, read every single one of the 350-400 entries in the AWW, and post on just about all of them, so I do know what reading pages and pages of cr@p is like. I do have Review Forum credentials, even if I don't have PR credentials.

I may not have expressed myself very clearly with that list. It suddenly occurred to me that we all behave differently in different roles and different relationships. I am different when I see myself as a boss, compared with seeing myself as a big sister, or a step-mother, or a mentor, or landlady, and so on. So the question was about roles, and was a general one, with the examples being just that, examples. It was intended to spark non-confrontational discussion about roles, not confrontational attacks. *shrug*

The questions which I asked you which you are certainly entitled to ignore are why can't you accept that some people do fear the words and reactions of people whom they may never meet? ( F2269809?thread=809371&skip=80&show=20#p8907999 ) Why is so difficult for you to accept that words on a website do reach others that deeply? Do you really truly only care about people you meet?

As I said, there is no obligation for you to answer them. I am posting them again to clarify exactly which questions I was referring to.

I wish you were not feeling quite so defensive about all of this. I am not coming from a position of criticising what individuals do or have done.

What I am doing is entering into a discussion (a fairly abstract discussion) about what consitites acceptable behaviour by reviewers in an amateur review forum. The reason I care is because I care about the AWW, and because I have - as I already said - been put off creative writing by a brusque and impatient forum-regular on another site completely.

I'm not attacking you. I am challenging your ideas and asking you to explain your thinking.

If you read this thread you'll see that I did the same thing to FM, and although I disagree with FM's line of thought, I respect his right to think it. I am not an unreasonable woman, please don't treat me as if I am. (I don't even know why I am worried about how you are feeling, since you aren't real [to me] and I'll never meet you.

Just when we were doing so well, too.

Hey ho.

Ben

PS - one thing which *did* annoy me about your last two posts - who are you to say when a discussion should end? If I am bored of a thread for some reason, I unsubscribe.

Who are any of us to say that a particular thread should end?

B

Oh, see now he has unsubscribed, that wiley old dog...

Did I ever say how much I, and others, appreciated that AWW run?

I reckon that if Ooj et al say they'll try to curtail some of their instincts, we should accept that. Well, I'm going to anyways. I trust you'll do what you want, Ben.