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

If people are interested in the situation surrounding LeKZ and other unhappy Guide experiences, I have started an email discussion group. Please visit my personal space to find out how to join.

I second that - go join, folks! Rob, so we can talk about other unhappy Guide experiences as well? I certainly have my share...

Maybe I'm just clueless, but what's the advantage of discussing all this via an email group as opposed to here online?

Mikey

I'm not sure I understand either. Too much of this business has been conducted through private communications and obscure forums already, as to make it downright impossible for anybody not already in the know to make sense of it. But I suppose that's just my opinion.

There are a number of advantages to email discussion as opposed to open public debate:
1. Dissenters are easily ignored.
2. Those posting to/reading exclusively public fora can be easily dismissed as not having "all the information", an effective way of closing down argument without having to supply reasons. In fact, it enables participants to plead avoidance of paraphrasing or the like to "reasonably" avoid providing facts.
3. Email discussions require all parties to exchange email addresses, a more personal disclosure of information than that required simply to post here. This will tend to exclude potential dissenters immediately, as they would know that a hostile group could theoretically cause problems for a person whose email address they know in a way not possible here.

I did my level best to gain as much information as possible from here and from other publicly available resources before I posted my first comment about it on H2G2. I've also done my level best to remain a disinterested observer. Several times I've felt that some discussions have been closed down by one person or another, on spurious grounds of "well, you don't know everything that's happened".

I take a detour now into the intensely personal. Read it here, folks, because I guarantee I will never, ever, provide information this personal online ever again. I was conceived out of wedlock. My parents married young and ill-advised. When I was still a babe in arms, and therefore too young to know anything at all, much less my father, my mother left him shortly after an argument in which she tried to attract his attention with an axe. She moved in with her mother, who basically brought me up. Many times over the years they've clashed, and I've mediated. Often after the event, during discussions about the past, my grandmother has used the phrase "things have happened, you don't know everything that's happened." End of personal section.

For that reason, spurious claims that because I don't hold all the information my opinion on something is invalid SERIOUSLY P**S ME OFF. If you have information I don't which renders my opinion invalid - GIVE ME THE INFORMATION. I am a mature individual, and if it is valid, I WILL change my mind. By hiding it from me, you merely make me think:
"This person has information. For some reason, it's enough to convince *them*, but it's so flaky that even *they* realise it's not sound enough to air in public."

I'm sorry this has turned into a rant, and I sincerely promise never to do it again.

I ask this, though. If you've got something to say about this, something real, say it here. And Grief - I've not had any reply to post 8 or anything following it. Did you even read it?

Hi HVL.

You missed
4. People are more willing to share information and offer opinions in a private and temporary environment, particularly where opinions may be critical of others.

5. Such a discussion on h2g2 will very rapidly attract the attention of people saying 'get over it' and 'move on' and yada, yada, yada. Negativity like that isn't conducive to good discussion.

6. Certain discussions are best carried out in private, especially discussions of very private things. "airing one's dirty laundry" in public is not socially encouraged.

7. It implies a certain level of commitment to actively join such a conversation. Hence the conversation is unlikely to attract the attention of random passers-by who may be unhelpful.

8. People who have been banned from h2g2 can contribute, and there is less risk of 'third person invisible'.

Incidentally, given the ease of creating a disposable email account, or using an anonymous re-mailer for the truly paranoid, I don't see that your second reason is terribly valid. But in all likelihood I may have a different opinion of privacy and other risks than yourself, so I can see that it might be valid for you.

(cont...)

Well, I guess we have the pros and cons. Of course to me, one man's airing of dirty laundry is another man's calling names behind backs. (Given the prevalence of Mark Moron on N2G2, I'll suggest "Non Cogito" or "Jake*ss" for me if it comes down to that).

Personally, I think I'm with Hoovooloo somewhat on this one. I don't mind if people discuss things on mailing lists (or better still, talk stuff over drinks at the pub), but I'm a bit peeved if those private discussions get cited in the place of public discussion. While I am interested, I don't really have the time to keep track of all these private lists (even many fora here), but I don't see why that means I'm unworthy to contribute my own opinion when I can. When I don't know the whole story, I try to be fair, but private lists make it hard for me to also go back and learn more. Also, I love the sublime irony of complaining about H2G2 restrictions on a restricted mailing list.

But I haven't had my coffee yet, so I'm a bit punchy. Do whatever you want. Knock yourselves out. Just come back afterwards and let us know what you think.

regarding information, and the like.

There are three issues here. The first is that much of the relevant information is under confidentiality - I do not pass on information received by email to anyone, under any circumstances, without getting explicit permission. That's basic trustworthiness.

The second is that much relevant information is consigned to the electronic trash can, and no longer available. As such, it convinces me, since I can remember it, but would be supremely unreliable for anyone else.

The third is that some discussions are hurtful in and of themselves, and I would not wish to give information to fuel such fires without being confident that the positives will outweigh the negatives.

The fourth is that the information is often available already in a paraphrased form or in the clear on h2g2, and I don't particularly care to repeat what has already been said, unless it will be worth my while.

However, I do not think your opinion is less valid for not having such information. In many ways it is better, for it is uncluttered by factors that should be irrelevant. And I am equally sure that you have information that I am not privy to, such is the nature of things. I hope I have not implied otherwise.

"4. People are more willing to share information and offer opinions in a private and temporary environment, particularly where opinions may be critical of others."

If you have information you aren't prepared to share here - why not?
See my *very* personal opinion above, or on second thoughts, preferably don't.

"5. Such a discussion on h2g2 will very rapidly attract the attention of people saying 'get over it' and 'move on' and yada, yada, yada. Negativity like that isn't conducive to good discussion."

So ignore them. It's *incredibly easy*. "Grief" has managed to pretty comprehensively ignore the content of posting 8 here, hasn't he? A reasonable post, with reasonable questions, just completely ignored. Just stick them in Wally's pile of perpetual ignorage and eventually they'll get bored and go away. Except me.

"6. Certain discussions are best carried out in private, especially discussions of very private things. "airing one's dirty laundry" in public is not socially encouraged."

Agreed. But if you're going to use private discussions as justification for publicly expressed opinions or positions, then the laundry has to be available for public examination or the opinion/position is inherently undermined. Otherwise you're just doing censorship under another name.

"7. It implies a certain level of commitment to actively join such a conversation. Hence the conversation is unlikely to attract the attention of random passers-by who may be unhelpful."

Commitment or otherwise to a conversation is easily demonstrable here by the number and length of posts. See point 5 about how easy it is to completely ignore random passers-by. Of course, the *problem* is if someone you ignore *here* has a valid point, that puts you in a bad light *in public*. Oooh.

"8. People who have been banned from h2g2 can contribute, and there is less risk of 'third person invisible'."

It's a fair cop. You got me bang to rights guv. It was me wot dun it. There is simply no good answer to that one. The only thing I can say about it is that this is a conversation being carried on by quite a large number of people. Only one has been banned (lifetime suspension - hah! - no euphemisms, please). The rest are quite at liberty to discuss the banning and factors leading and arising. Don't know what "third person invisible" means. Sorry.

I have discovered that the archives for this list are available online for anyone to read. See my space for a link in the not-too-distant future.

'third person invisible' is something that was mentioned elsewhere on h2g2 - it was something of a test, I confess, though not a terribly serious one. I can't remember the exact place it was mentioned - do a h2g2 forum search

--

4) Information I'm not prepared to share - I gave four reasons. Another is that some stuff is private and should remain so. For example, I'm not going to share my address online. There are plenty other such.

(5) & (7) Such people are ignorable, but add an element of 'noise' to precedings. Try having a conversation in a heavily spammed usenet group sometime... Also I disagree about your view of commitment: many 'lurkers' are very commited, and seldom speak, but their views are among the best.

(6) I reserve the right to use non-transferable evidence to back up my own opinions, though I understand that such evidence will not convince others of their opinions. I am not alone in this - many believers in deities base their beliefs on personal revelations that are necessarily non-transferable, but that doesn't affect my atheism. That's just how the world often is. btw, it's not censorship if I decide to exercise my freedom to NOT speak...

--

That said, is there any post in particular where I have mentioned such information where you'd like more info?

The link has been created.

Like I say (way too many times), I'm not going to be passing on, paraphrased or otherwise, private email, but this is all publically available, so if you are as interested as you say, feel free to read.

In response *only* to the last point...

Nothing specific. On the other hand, it's easy to read back over the posts here and see where people have been cagey about information that has been discussed elsewhere.

soXe XeoXXe aXe saXiXX XeXe XXaX iX's XiXXiXuXX Xo XXeaXe a XosX XXiXX is aXXiXuos eXouXX XXaX iX is XaXX Xo 'XXaXsXaXe', XuX sXiXX XaX, XusX, Xe 'XXaXsXaXeX'. I XeeX XXaX iX is XXeXXX easX, XoX eXaXXXe XX XXossiXX ouX aXX oX XXe XoXsoXaXXs eXXeXX XoX 's'. XXaX Xo Xou aXX XXiXX?

just curious,
MyRedDice

Heh, wrong place. Oops.

Hello, everyone -

I have avoided posting anything here (and other relevant threads on h2g2) for the past week while I tried to figure out something constructive to contribute. I'm sure I was, you know, like, deeply missed: I believe the widely-held concerns for me and others like me included "pah!", and something about holes in buckets of water. (When I take *my* hand from a bucket of water, I see only that the contents sink to their previous level...)



Fortunately, this kind of injurious, dismissive approach seems to have evolved into attempts by some in some places to openly and unscreamingly examine all sides of the debate, and so now I can avoid allowing this particular post to descend into emotional mudflinging. I would honesty like to thank those on both sides who make such an effort.

It would seem to me that - given the links on both Lucinda's and Almighty Rob's pages (and probably mine when I get the time, thereby illustrating the innate solidarity of Robs...) - that references to the off-h2g2 forum as being 'closed' might need to be rethought. What it does provide is a place for those involved parties who choose not to or cannot carry on a conversation here to respond to inquiry and attack both. There can be no pretense of exclusion in a forum in which anyone can participate.

I expect hopefully that it will be in the aforementioned offsite group that I will be able to polish and hone my "Arbiter Volunteer' concept into such form that I can then confidently toss it to the wolves at h2g2 like a firstborn child. In addition, such a forum also allows for the concentration of relative h2g2 threads so that 'newcomers' such as myself can get the pertinent background more quickly without a lot of slogging through a bunch of non-relevant (but nonetheless fascinating) material here.



For example; I was very confused as to who assigned the 'word breaks' in the XXXXXX posting. I understood that LeKZ had posted a run-on string of letters and X's that wound up in moderation because it did not wrap. Then Peta 'edited it' and 'fixed' the problem. To my mind, then, the only reason the 'secret message' could be approached as words at all was because someone other than the poster had established said 'words'. You can, perhaps, appreciate my wonderment at the (ongoing) results.

However, before I could post that question here and reveal myself for the doofus my mother always told me I was, a post in the offsite forum by certain banned researchers revealed their own involvement in the process. Not that their construction bore the slightest resemblance to the finished, 'interpreted' message, mind you, but it did clarify things that had me a tad pixilated.

See? There are advantages to anything if you take the time to look for 'em. Or, as Calvin and Hobbes said: "There's treasure everywhere!"



Thank you for your time.

-7rob7

Hoovooloo,

Don't get too worried about accusations of not knowing all the details of the "real story." Mark Moxon said more than once that the only people with a full view of the lifetime suspension are the h2g2 staff and Arpeggio. Anybody else could judge what Arpeggio said on h2g2, but has no way of knowing how many other complaints may have been made about her, or what might have passed in the emails between Arpeggio and h2g2 staff.

So neither side can declare that the other is missing some crucial detail, unless the person claiming that is Mark, Peta, Arpeggio, or maybe one of the other Italics.

"If you've got something to say about this, something real, say it here."

Arpeggio surely has something "real" to say, is surely reading your invitation here, but is not able to "say it here." Obviously the biggest selling point of discussing things off h2g2 is that the Accused can defend herself there, but can't here. (Personally, I've exhausted any interest in discussing it here, there or anywhere.)

As for Grief's obligation to answer your questions, I don't see one.

This will be my last post here. I agree. LeKZ is defending herself elsewhere. I shall post no further messages in this thread regarding her or the situation.

I didn't imply Grief had any obligation to reply here. Quite the reverse. In fact, I took care to ensure that he didn't even have to *read* all of a post I sent him if he decided after the first paragraph that it may not be something he'd want to read. He did read it, and responded elsewhere. Fine.

I have nothing further here.

Unless Mark is co-operating with Echelon and snooping all private conversation, then he doesn't have the full story either - nobody does. Besides, I really doubt that he has viewed all of the relevant posts - not least because there are so dang many of them and it would be a waste of his time...

On a side note, LeKZ has said on more than one occasion that the only official warning she got was the 'first and final' one on her space. So she doesn't have the full details of the complaints made against her either - where or what they are. This is one of the things I highlighted as room for improvement in general in my 'warnings and hidings' thread...

Sorry, Hoovooloo, I didn't mean to chase you off here either.

As the creator of the mailing list, let me tell you why it was created.

After LeKZ was banned, I was informed (by this very thread, actually). Not having known LeKZ, I wanted to find out the situation in which a researcher could be banned. When I read more, I was not impressed, and was particularly disturbed by what I considered offensive posts that slandered anyone with mental conditions.

Anyway, LeKZ emailed me to thank me for that post, and we began to converse via email. Soon more people were introduced to the conversations, and eventually we decided (LeKZ and I) that setting up a mailing list would be more convenient than CCing everyone. People could join, quit, contribute as they please.

It was purely out of convenience, not some elaborate plot to take the discussion off h2g2. In fact, since anyone can join the mailing list, it is more open than the conversations that preceded it.

Feel free to sign up. Its purpose is debate and discussion. There are complex, multifaceted issues involved here. But be warned that LeKZ and I have the power to remove people from the list, and spamming or abuse will not be tolerated.

Have a nice day.