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

Not necessarily.
He did work for them for a bit.
I think like most grownups and atheists, he understood that there are just some things you can't say with a straight face around the suits and skirts.
If you bury the social comment in humor, you can smuggle it in if it is not too subtle.

The problem as I see it through my damaged kaleidascope is the suits and the wannabe suits.
Many of them went to college and were later allowed to leave.
If they had stayed, there would be more openings for people who don't like suits and will never want one except for the odd office party or an observational visit to a bondage club on Valentine's Day.

Someone said that the current brouhaha comes from a war-heightened sense that security and normality should be accentuated regardless of whether there are any problems or abnormal situations.

This leads to otherwise clueless individuals firmly believing that they should have a clue, no matter what it is, and settling for semantics as opposed to actual observation and thought.

The whole of life is not quantifiable.
Some things have to be viewed in context.
It takes a wise bureaucrat or sockdrawercrat to realise that he has no idea what the context is and that he should ask someone who does.

So, basically, what we have is folks leading from the rear, which means everything to them is hindsight.

Marjin, please don't speculate on what Douglas might or might not have done. It's not particularly good form.

Hootoo is administered people who strive to write good editorial guidelines.
But hootoo is brought to life by people who strive to write personal and provocative material.
This kind of thing happens, the former proliferate and the latter leave.
Can we stop trying to resuscitate the bathwater, please?
Pin

>>...normality should be accentuated regardless...<<

Stiff upper lip?
Once more into the breeches?
For George and Henry?


The grey faceless enforcement of a heartless 'normality'.
This is a major theme of Scifi. It always sounds like a Conservative plot. Or worse a self perpetuating bureaucracy gone mad (As if there were any real distinction betwixt the two ). In either case I predict it will simply be quite grey and faceless. Unless of course it becomes terminal.

~jwf~

>> ..hootoo is brought to life by people.. <<

Aye, ethers the rub!


Geez, Pin you beat me to the post, but hey I couldna asked for a better introduction.

Thankue, thankue verimuch...

peace
~jwf~

*rears political head*

Oh no, not a horrible, communist hivemind!

Ahem. Sorry.

*ahem*

Oh Hi Serge, uhmm..
*ahem* No you're not
AND *ahem* Don't be.



peace
~!jwf!~

Hey I've got to make a pretense at least, don't I?

Sheer coincidence of course, but I thought this might be of interest:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/3099941.stm


The BBC chairman said he had been angered at threats from "government sources" to reduce BBC funding, remove its director-general Greg Dyke and change its charter.

He said: "Our integrity is under attack and we are chastised for taking a different view on editorial matters from that of the government and its supporters.

"Because we have had the temerity to do this, it is hinted that a system that has protected the BBC for 80 years should be swept away and replaced by an external regulator that will 'bring the BBC to heel'."

Sheer coincidence, as I say......



Terri.

Coincidence? Naturally.

Then again, one wonders if the threatening "government sources" will turn out to be as described at all. It could be the chauffeur or catering assistant "leaking" information or speculating on policy changes perhaps...

More wait-and-seeing (or rather never really seeing), I suppose.

< In order to stimulate an ordered discussion around this topic, we've created an Entry at A965252. >

It's interesting to note that the above entry was - Created: 12th February 2003

I noticed that too. I was assuming that they adapted a deleted entry or something...

See F114453?thread=299999

Thanks SEF -

Jimster, why should I not speculate on what DNA might have done, comparing the ideals he stated and the BBC making this impossible?

One very good reason is that Douglas's relatives still read h2g2, and I don't personally think that any other reason is needed.

I personally agree with marjin and I also think that A157349 has alot to do with the feelings expressed.
I will not speculate on the wishes or feelings of those not able to do so for themselves, but personally I would have not let this wonderful idea (h2g2) fall into the control of 'big brother corporation'.
I do want to thank the BBC for hosting such a wonderful site.

As this may be my last posting here (personal views not welcome?), I would like to thank all the wonderful friends I have made here.




pedboy

Don't go that far yet, Pedboy.

I really wonder what DNA's relatives think about the way the BBC is destroying DNA's lifework, up till now I have seen no reaction at all from anyone (outside mayby the 'official' ones) that says: It's about time.

It will be a long time before I start thinking again of creating an entry for the toddlers guide of the BBC allowed subjects.

Marjin, it's simply because it's not particularly good form to assume that someone would storm off and leave the BBC because of what's happened (especially as Douglas wasn't actually a part of the BBC when the site moved here), and nor is it good form to expect them to. But mainly it's because, with respect, you didn't know him. Having consulted many of the people who *did* know Douglas, they've often been of the opinion that he would be disappointed that so many people are content to just sit and moan rather than do something constructive.



Feel free to read between the lines on the team's general silence on this matter (you can even make up your own personal conspiracy theories if it makes you feel better). But the fact is we're now being asked to consider how appropriate some of our content is for a wider audience and it'd be really useful if the discussion moved on a bit from mere outrage to thinking of ways to deal with this in a practical sense.

Bear in mind that BBCi comes under the same guidelines that govern TV and radio, so suggestions such as 'We should be allowed to say what we like' are not really practical, just idealistic. But does the Community want certain material removed? If not, what does the Community propose we do about subject matter that might not be appropriate for all?

"But does the Community want certain material removed? If not, what does the Community propose we do about subject matter that might not be appropriate for all?"

Is that all adults, or anyone including unsupervised children that might browse here?