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

Here's one thing I can think of:

When I have a *lot* of comments/constructive criticism for someone, I'm going to try and post only smaller bits of it at a time. I think that dumping a 2-page post full of critcism on someone might be perceived as threatening, even it its all helpful, well-meaning, constructive criticism. So I'm going to aim for shorter posts in situations like this, maybe 2 or 3 points per post.

Just my 2 cents!
Mikey

Oh, Arpeggio, you did 'acquit yourself honorably'. There's no doubt of that. You also, quite unintentionally, helped drive a writer away. You say that no one in the thread could or should have done anything differently; I disagree. Maybe I can explain. Look, here's something you wrote:

'I am basically a *teacher* at heart, and one does not go about stomping out curiosity. If PlayboyReporter was serious, he would rise to the occasion.'

Well, maybe *one does not,* but you, and I, and others, did. You were trying to be the perfect teacher for the (non-existent) perfect student. 'If PlayboyReporter was serious,' then no doubt, he would just drink up unbounded criticism, with an eye for nothing but his own improvement. But very few people will do that, even in a classroom. Most will be overwhelmed and leave.

Besides, most of us here don't think of the Guide as a classroom, where we write 'papers'. We think of it as a fun place where we can work together on a cool project in a relaxed atmosphere. That's not to say that we are cavalier about quality, we just don't want to break a newbie's spirit, if we can avoid it. Better to let someone learn from their mistakes *at their own pace* than try to force so much learning that they're smothered.

Now, I hope it doesn't look like I'm attacking you, Arpeggio. You have done your best to participate in the Guide as you understood it, and you are to be commended for your enthusiasm and for your willingness to share your talent. But what you overlooked in all the help pages you read about how the process works was the tone - not pedantic, but just friendly. I hope you stick around and get the *feel* of how research and Peer Review tend to go on. I'm someone who easily errs in the same direction you do (heavyhandedness), and I've been learning a lot here and having a great time!

I, of course, need to consider if I went to far in trying to wake this person up to how flip, rude, inconsiderate, and unthinking he had been in light of all the attention and support he was being offered from the community.

On reflection, I cannot say that I feel I was anywhere near as harsh as I was feeling justified at being. I *am* sorry that Playboy Reporter felt that he had to pick up his toys and run away. I don't like to think that I might have been responsible for adding the proverbial final straw, but I still feel that straw was necessary.

Could I have done it in a kinder, gentler way? If you re-read the thread, I believe that you will find that similar comments couched in kinder terms either went completely over Playboy Reporter's head or bounced off his self-centered armour of non-responsibility. Many others were apparently exasperated but holding in their natural desire to slap Playboy Reporter down but instead used restrained gestures that were evidently interpreted as license to continue ingnoring his own ignorance and ill preparedness.

I had hoped that he would react to what I said with some sense of personal integrety or contriteness so that a discussion could have begun on where each of us might have been misunderstanding each other's positions. But, the evident result was that when confronted with standards of excellence and personal responsibility that required some response, he choose 'flight' rather than 'flight.'

Of course, posting on any subject to the world from an organization that purports to be an encyclopedia under construction is both prestigeous and daunting. I suppose could rip off articles with as little substance as Playboy Reporter seemed to be offering us, but only if I abandoned my sense of quality and completeness.

I post daily here and there on h2g2 and spend some non-trivial amount of time trying to make sure that what I am saying is true, honest, and real (stating in front that my understanding may not be that of the reader.) I've been called on some issues and I accept and correct or an intesting discussion ensues. But I would never consider offering those conversations or ad hoc lectures (or whatever) as potential entries to the guide without verifying every fact, checking what I wrote for a balanced view, and, most importantly, establishing that I was entitled to speak authoritatively on that subject. After all I would be posting for all the world to take what I have presented as a suitable to be part of a 'reference' work.

Could Playboy Reporter have been preserved as a client for the BBC? Probably, could he have been preserved as a researcher for h2g2 and educated into his responsibilites in return for our time as his helpers, friends, co-authors, and members of a community dedicated to sharing our knowledge and understanding for the benefit of ourselves and the world, I doubt it very seriously.

Of course, not all of can or will write for the guide and be accepted for editing and publication as a formal part of this mind-boggling wonderful guide. This only works because all of us support each other in an environment that encourages us to think that understanding is possible and more importantly that communicating that understsanding is GOOD.

'Understanding' is a very important concept. To me, at least, this is the first encylopedia ever attempted that places understanding equal to or, even, slightly ahead of information. That was what Douglas Adams created when he created the concept of the 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.' That electronic book didn't dispense knowledge, it supplied a compendium of understanding, or 'wisdom' if you like that concrete noun better than my active nouned verb.

The beauty of the Hitchhiker 'trilogy' was that it dispensed understanding as freely as if it were common as dirt. Here at h2g2, we have to pool our talents, knowledge, and understanding of its significance to be able to achieve the continuing and self-perfecting sturcture that Douglas visualized in fiction and began to realize in fact.

Though I have my suspicions, I can't speak for any of you. *That* is why I am here, though. That is why I would not choose to leave.

That is also why, when I see the guide threatened and the people who work on, for, and around it mocked and belittled, treated like incidental servants to a selfish, spoiled, and non-understanding lump like Playboy Reporter, I get a bit steamed up. Moreover, this particular lump was actively fighting to preserve his lack of understanding in the face of good people trying to help him past what they took to be a naive lack of comprehension of the scope of what he was, ostensibly, trying to do. I have always reacted poorly to the aggresively ignorant and I will not miss him. I just wish he had not demanded to be placed in our collective Sin Bin.

When I was teaching Introduction to Theatre, I told my class, predominantly of freshmen trying to get through their requirement for a fine arts credit with as little pain as possible, that no one had yet come up with a widely accepted definition of what theatre was. Then I taught them an overview of theatre history, theatre appreciation, and theatre practice. (Theatre had to get slaves from somewhere. )

At the end of the semester they took a final exam on which I always offered a choice of several questions to be answered in detail for a major portion of their grade. One of those questions was always "What is theatre?" Inevitably, a third of my students chose to tackle that problem in a two hour closed book exam. None of them ever achieved more than a mild and, merely, descriptive success but I still gave out more than a few 'A's. Why? They were a very good start on an overview of the subject . . . or they just knew which of my buttons to push. Ultimately they demonstrated that they had taken in the material that I had given them, thought about it, and came up with some significant personal answers, and that, of course, why I was happy to be teaching.

Lord help, Playboy Reporter, if he is ever a student of mine.

Barton

I, of course, need to consider if I went to far in trying to wake this person up to how flip, rude, inconsiderate, and unthinking he had been in light of all the attention and support he was being offered from the community.

On reflection, I cannot say that I feel I was anywhere near as harsh as I was feeling justified at being. I *am* sorry that Playboy Reporter felt that he had to pick up his toys and run away. I don't like to think that I might have been responsible for adding the proverbial final straw, but I still feel that straw was necessary.

Could I have done it in a kinder, gentler way? If you re-read the thread, I believe that you will find that similar comments couched in kinder terms either went completely over Playboy Reporter's head or bounced off his self-centered armour of non-responsibility. Many others were apparently exasperated but holding in their natural desire to slap Playboy Reporter down but instead used restrained gestures that were evidently interpreted as license to continue ingnoring his own ignorance and ill preparedness.

I had hoped that he would react to what I said with some sense of personal integrety or contriteness so that a discussion could have begun on where each of us might have been misunderstanding each other's positions. But, the evident result was that when confronted with standards of excellence and personal responsibility that required some response, he choose 'flight' rather than 'flight.'

Of course, posting on any subject to the world from an organization that purports to be an encyclopedia under construction is both prestigeous and daunting. I suppose could rip off articles with as little substance as Playboy Reporter seemed to be offering us, but only if I abandoned my sense of quality and completeness.

I post daily here and there on h2g2 and spend some non-trivial amount of time trying to make sure that what I am saying is true, honest, and real (stating in front that my understanding may not be that of the reader.) I've been called on some issues and I accept and correct or an intesting discussion ensues. But I would never consider offering those conversations or ad hoc lectures (or whatever) as potential entries to the guide without verifying every fact, checking what I wrote for a balanced view, and, most importantly, establishing that I was entitled to speak authoritatively on that subject. After all I would be posting for all the world to take what I have presented as a suitable to be part of a 'reference' work.

Could Playboy Reporter have been preserved as a client for the BBC? Probably, could he have been preserved as a researcher for h2g2 and educated into his responsibilites in return for our time as his helpers, friends, co-authors, and members of a community dedicated to sharing our knowledge and understanding for the benefit of ourselves and the world, I doubt it very seriously.

Of course, not all of can or will write for the guide and be accepted for editing and publication as a formal part of this mind-boggling wonderful guide. This only works because all of us support each other in an environment that encourages us to think that understanding is possible and more importantly that communicating that understsanding is GOOD.

'Understanding' is a very important concept. To me, at least, this is the first encylopedia ever attempted that places understanding equal to or, even, slightly ahead of information. That was what Douglas Adams created when he created the concept of the 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.' That electronic book didn't dispense knowledge, it supplied a compendium of understanding, or 'wisdom' if you like that concrete noun better than my active nouned verb.

The beauty of the Hitchhiker 'trilogy' was that it dispensed understanding as freely as if it were common as dirt. Here at h2g2, we have to pool our talents, knowledge, and understanding of its significance to be able to achieve the continuing and self-perfecting sturcture that Douglas visualized in fiction and began to realize in fact.

Though I have my suspicions, I can't speak for any of you. *That* is why I am here, though. That is why I would not choose to leave.

That is also why, when I see the guide threatened and the people who work on, for, and around it mocked and belittled, treated like incidental servants to a selfish, spoiled, and non-understanding lump like Playboy Reporter, I get a bit steamed up. Moreover, this particular lump was actively fighting to preserve his lack of understanding in the face of good people trying to help him past what they took to be a naive lack of comprehension of the scope of what he was, ostensibly, trying to do. I have always reacted poorly to the aggresively ignorant and I will not miss him. I just wish he had not demanded to be placed in our collective Sin Bin.

When I was teaching Introduction to Theatre, I told my class, predominantly of freshmen trying to get through their requirement for a fine arts credit with as little pain as possible, that no one had yet come up with a widely accepted definition of what theatre was. Then I taught them an overview of theatre history, theatre appreciation, and theatre practice. (Theatre had to get slaves from somewhere. )

At the end of the semester they took a final exam on which I always offered a choice of several questions to be answered in detail for a major portion of their grade. One of those questions was always "What is theatre?" Inevitably, a third of my students chose to tackle that problem in a two hour closed book exam. None of them ever achieved more than a mild and, merely, descriptive success but I still gave out more than a few 'A's. Why? They were a very good start on an overview of the subject . . . or they just knew which of my buttons to push. Ultimately they demonstrated that they had taken in the material that I had given them, thought about it, and came up with some significant personal answers, and that, of course, why I was happy to be teaching.

Lord help, Playboy Reporter, if he is ever a student of mine.

Barton

I, of course, need to consider if I went to far in trying to wake this person up to how flip, rude, inconsiderate, and unthinking he had been in light of all the attention and support he was being offered from the community.

On reflection, I cannot say that I feel I was anywhere near as harsh as I was feeling justified at being. I *am* sorry that Playboy Reporter felt that he had to pick up his toys and run away. I don't like to think that I might have been responsible for adding the proverbial final straw, but I still feel that straw was necessary.

Could I have done it in a kinder, gentler way? If you re-read the thread, I believe that you will find that similar comments couched in kinder terms either went completely over Playboy Reporter's head or bounced off his self-centered armor of non-responsibility. Many others were apparently exasperated but holding in their natural desire to slap Playboy Reporter down but instead used restrained gestures that were evidently interpreted as license to continue ignoring his own ignorance and ill preparedness.

I had hoped that he would react to what I said with some sense of personal integrity or contriteness so that a discussion could have begun on where each of us might have been misunderstanding each other's positions. But, the evident result was that when confronted with standards of excellence and personal responsibility that required some response, he choose 'flight' rather than 'flight.'

Of course, posting on any subject to the world from an organization that purports to be an encyclopedia under construction is both prestigious and daunting. I suppose could rip off articles with as little substance as Playboy Reporter seemed to be offering us, but only if I abandoned my sense of quality and completeness.

I post daily here and there on h2g2 and spend some non-trivial amount of time trying to make sure that what I am saying is true, honest, and real (stating in front that my understanding may not be that of the reader.) I've been called on some issues and I accept and correct or an interesting discussion ensues. But I would never consider offering those conversations or ad hoc lectures (or whatever) as potential entries to the guide without verifying every fact, checking what I wrote for a balanced view, and, most importantly, establishing that I was entitled to speak authoritatively on that subject. After all I would be posting for all the world to take what I have presented as a suitable to be part of a 'reference' work.

Could Playboy Reporter have been preserved as a client for the BBC? Probably, could he have been preserved as a researcher for h2g2 and educated into his responsibilities in return for our time as his helpers, friends, co-authors, and members of a community dedicated to sharing our knowledge and understanding for the benefit of ourselves and the world, I doubt it very seriously.

Of course, not all of can or will write for the guide and be accepted for editing and publication as a formal part of this mind-boggling wonderful guide. This only works because all of us support each other in an environment that encourages us to think that understanding is possible and more importantly that communicating that understanding is GOOD.

'Understanding' is a very important concept. To me, at least, this is the first encyclopedia ever attempted that places understanding equal to or, even, slightly ahead of information. That was what Douglas Adams created when he created the concept of the 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.' That electronic book didn't dispense knowledge, it supplied a compendium of understanding, or 'wisdom' if you like that concrete noun better than my active nouned verb.

The beauty of the Hitchhiker 'trilogy' was that it dispensed understanding as freely as if it were common as dirt. Here at h2g2, we have to pool our talents, knowledge, and understanding of its significance to be able to achieve the continuing and self-perfecting structure that Douglas visualized in fiction and began to realize in fact.

Though I have my suspicions, I can't speak for any of you. *That* is why I am here, though. That is why I would not choose to leave.

That is also why, when I see the guide threatened and the people who work on, for, and around it mocked and belittled, treated like incidental servants to a selfish, spoiled, and non-understanding lump like Playboy Reporter, I get a bit steamed up. Moreover, this particular lump was actively fighting to preserve his lack of understanding in the face of good people trying to help him past what they took to be a naive lack of comprehension of the scope of what he was, ostensibly, trying to do. I have always reacted poorly to the aggressively ignorant and I will not miss him. I just wish he had not demanded to be placed in our collective Sin Bin.

When I was teaching Introduction to Theatre, I told my class, predominantly of freshmen trying to get through their requirement for a fine arts credit with as little pain as possible, that no one had yet come up with a widely accepted definition of what theatre was. Then I taught them an overview of theatre history, theatre appreciation, and theatre practice. (Theatre had to get slaves from somewhere. )

At the end of the semester they took a final exam on which I always offered a choice of several questions to be answered in detail for a major portion of their grade. One of those questions was always "What is theatre?" Inevitably, a third of my students chose to tackle that problem in a two hour closed book exam. None of them ever achieved more than a mild and, merely, descriptive success but I still gave out more than a few 'A's. Why? They were a very good start on an overview of the subject . . . or they just knew which of my buttons to push. Ultimately they demonstrated that they had taken in the material that I had given them, thought about it, and came up with some significant personal answers, and that, of course, why I was happy to be teaching.

Lord help, Playboy Reporter, if he is ever a student of mine.

Barton

I, of course, need to consider if I went to far in trying to wake this person up to how flip, rude, inconsiderate, and unthinking he had been in light of all the attention and support he was being offered from the community.

On reflection, I cannot say that I feel I was anywhere near as harsh as I was feeling justified at being. I *am* sorry that Playboy Reporter felt that he had to pick up his toys and run away. I don't like to think that I might have been responsible for adding the proverbial final straw, but I still feel that straw was necessary.

Could I have done it in a kinder, gentler way? If you re-read the thread, I believe that you will find that similar comments couched in kinder terms either went completely over Playboy Reporter's head or bounced off his self-centered armor of non-responsibility. Many others were apparently exasperated but holding in their natural desire to slap Playboy Reporter down but instead used restrained gestures that were evidently interpreted as license to continue ignoring his own ignorance and ill preparedness.

I had hoped that he would react to what I said with some sense of personal integrity or contriteness so that a discussion could have begun on where each of us might have been misunderstanding each other's positions. But, the evident result was that when confronted with standards of excellence and personal responsibility that required some response, he choose 'flight' rather than 'flight.'

Of course, posting on any subject to the world from an organization that purports to be an encyclopedia under construction is both prestigious and daunting. I suppose could rip off articles with as little substance as Playboy Reporter seemed to be offering us, but only if I abandoned my sense of quality and completeness.

I post daily here and there on h2g2 and spend some non-trivial amount of time trying to make sure that what I am saying is true, honest, and real (stating in front that my understanding may not be that of the reader.) I've been called on some issues and I accept and correct or an interesting discussion ensues. But I would never consider offering those conversations or ad hoc lectures (or whatever) as potential entries to the guide without verifying every fact, checking what I wrote for a balanced view, and, most importantly, establishing that I was entitled to speak authoritatively on that subject. After all I would be posting for all the world to take what I have presented as a suitable to be part of a 'reference' work.

Could Playboy Reporter have been preserved as a client for the BBC? Probably, could he have been preserved as a researcher for h2g2 and educated into his responsibilities in return for our time as his helpers, friends, co-authors, and members of a community dedicated to sharing our knowledge and understanding for the benefit of ourselves and the world, I doubt it very seriously.

Of course, not all of can or will write for the guide and be accepted for editing and publication as a formal part of this mind-boggling wonderful guide. This only works because all of us support each other in an environment that encourages us to think that understanding is possible and more importantly that communicating that understanding is GOOD.

'Understanding' is a very important concept. To me, at least, this is the first encyclopedia ever attempted that places understanding equal to or, even, slightly ahead of information. That was what Douglas Adams created when he created the concept of the 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.' That electronic book didn't dispense knowledge, it supplied a compendium of understanding, or 'wisdom' if you like that concrete noun better than my active nouned verb.

The beauty of the Hitchhiker 'trilogy' was that it dispensed understanding as freely as if it were common as dirt. Here at h2g2, we have to pool our talents, knowledge, and understanding of its significance to be able to achieve the continuing and self-perfecting structure that Douglas visualized in fiction and began to realize in fact.

Though I have my suspicions, I can't speak for any of you. *That* is why I am here, though. That is why I would not choose to leave.

That is also why, when I see the guide threatened and the people who work on, for, and around it mocked and belittled, treated like incidental servants to a selfish, spoiled, and non-understanding lump like Playboy Reporter, I get a bit steamed up. Moreover, this particular lump was actively fighting to preserve his lack of understanding in the face of good people trying to help him past what they took to be a naive lack of comprehension of the scope of what he was, ostensibly, trying to do. I have always reacted poorly to the aggressively ignorant and I will not miss him. I just wish he had not demanded to be placed in our collective Sin Bin.

When I was teaching Introduction to Theatre, I told my class, predominantly of freshmen trying to get through their requirement for a fine arts credit with as little pain as possible, that no one had yet come up with a widely accepted definition of what theatre was. Then I taught them an overview of theatre history, theatre appreciation, and theatre practice. (Theatre had to get slaves from somewhere. )

At the end of the semester they took a final exam on which I always offered a choice of several questions to be answered in detail for a major portion of their grade. One of those questions was always "What is theatre?" Inevitably, a third of my students chose to tackle that problem in a two hour closed book exam. None of them ever achieved more than a mild and, merely, descriptive success but I still gave out more than a few 'A's. Why? They were a very good start on an overview of the subject . . . or they just knew which of my buttons to push. Ultimately they demonstrated that they had taken in the material that I had given them, thought about it, and came up with some significant personal answers, and that, of course, why I was happy to be teaching.

Lord help, Playboy Reporter, if he is ever a student of mine.

Barton

I, of course, need to consider if I went to far in trying to wake this person up to how flip, rude, inconsiderate, and unthinking he had been in light of all the attention and support he was being offered from the community.

On reflection, I cannot say that I feel I was anywhere near as harsh as I was feeling justified at being. I *am* sorry that Playboy Reporter felt that he had to pick up his toys and run away. I don't like to think that I might have been responsible for adding the proverbial final straw, but I still feel that straw was necessary.

Could I have done it in a kinder, gentler way? If you re-read the thread, I believe that you will find that similar comments couched in kinder terms either went completely over Playboy Reporter's head or bounced off his self-centered armor of non-responsibility. Many others were apparently exasperated but holding in their natural desire to slap Playboy Reporter down but instead used restrained gestures that were evidently interpreted as license to continue ignoring his own ignorance and ill preparedness.

I had hoped that he would react to what I said with some sense of personal integrity or contriteness so that a discussion could have begun on where each of us might have been misunderstanding each other's positions. But, the evident result was that when confronted with standards of excellence and personal responsibility that required some response, he choose 'flight' rather than 'flight.'

Of course, posting on any subject to the world from an organization that purports to be an encyclopedia under construction is both prestigious and daunting. I suppose could rip off articles with as little substance as Playboy Reporter seemed to be offering us, but only if I abandoned my sense of quality and completeness.

I post daily here and there on h2g2 and spend some non-trivial amount of time trying to make sure that what I am saying is true, honest, and real (stating in front that my understanding may not be that of the reader.) I've been called on some issues and I accept and correct or an interesting discussion ensues. But I would never consider offering those conversations or ad hoc lectures (or whatever) as potential entries to the guide without verifying every fact, checking what I wrote for a balanced view, and, most importantly, establishing that I was entitled to speak authoritatively on that subject. After all I would be posting for all the world to take what I have presented as a suitable to be part of a 'reference' work.

Could Playboy Reporter have been preserved as a client for the BBC? Probably, could he have been preserved as a researcher for h2g2 and educated into his responsibilities in return for our time as his helpers, friends, co-authors, and members of a community dedicated to sharing our knowledge and understanding for the benefit of ourselves and the world, I doubt it very seriously.

Of course, not all of can or will write for the guide and be accepted for editing and publication as a formal part of this mind-boggling wonderful guide. This only works because all of us support each other in an environment that encourages us to think that understanding is possible and more importantly that communicating that understanding is GOOD.

'Understanding' is a very important concept. To me, at least, this is the first encyclopedia ever attempted that places understanding equal to or, even, slightly ahead of information. That was what Douglas Adams created when he created the concept of the 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.' That electronic book didn't dispense knowledge, it supplied a compendium of understanding, or 'wisdom' if you like that concrete noun better than my active nouned verb.

The beauty of the Hitchhiker 'trilogy' was that it dispensed understanding as freely as if it were common as dirt. Here at h2g2, we have to pool our talents, knowledge, and understanding of its significance to be able to achieve the continuing and self-perfecting structure that Douglas visualized in fiction and began to realize in fact.

Though I have my suspicions, I can't speak for any of you. *That* is why I am here, though. That is why I would not choose to leave.

That is also why, when I see the guide threatened and the people who work on, for, and around it mocked and belittled, treated like incidental servants to a selfish, spoiled, and non-understanding lump like Playboy Reporter, I get a bit steamed up. Moreover, this particular lump was actively fighting to preserve his lack of understanding in the face of good people trying to help him past what they took to be a naive lack of comprehension of the scope of what he was, ostensibly, trying to do. I have always reacted poorly to the aggressively ignorant and I will not miss him. I just wish he had not demanded to be placed in our collective Sin Bin.

When I was teaching Introduction to Theatre, I told my class, predominantly of freshmen trying to get through their requirement for a fine arts credit with as little pain as possible, that no one had yet come up with a widely accepted definition of what theatre was. Then I taught them an overview of theatre history, theatre appreciation, and theatre practice. (Theatre had to get slaves from somewhere. )

At the end of the semester they took a final exam on which I always offered a choice of several questions to be answered in detail for a major portion of their grade. One of those questions was always "What is theatre?" Inevitably, a third of my students chose to tackle that problem in a two hour closed book exam. None of them ever achieved more than a mild and, merely, descriptive success but I still gave out more than a few 'A's. Why? They were a very good start on an overview of the subject . . . or they just knew which of my buttons to push. Ultimately they demonstrated that they had taken in the material that I had given them, thought about it, and came up with some significant personal answers, and that, of course, why I was happy to be teaching.

Lord help, Playboy Reporter, if he is ever a student of mine.

Barton

Darn! Darn! Darn!

On top of not appearing to go through, I went back after every failure and checked first to make sure it hadn't done what's happened.

Somebody's caching serve out there is messing me over.

I'm sorry everyone.

Barton

I hope it was obvious that I meant to type "'flight over 'fight'"

Sorry again for the duplicate entries.

Barton

Hmmmm, I'm trying not to get worked up here, it's late, and I'm having a bad day, but...

I don't feel that Playboy Reporter was "flip, rude, inconsiderate, and unthinking". I followed the thread, and read his entry, although I can't anymore because it's gone, and I believe he simply misjudged the Peer Review.

On the one hand we have banner adverts everywhere saying, come to the Peer Review, we're all friendly and pleasant, and then when people do, we yell at them and accuse them of being parasites. We go so far that they actual end up being driven off h2g2.

Now feel free to call me hypocritical. I have an entry banging around the back of the Peer Review. I don't have the time at the moment to complete research to get it finished, I misjudged how much work I would need to do, I have GCSEs which aren't giving me much h2g2-time!

I recall reading on this thread a comment about how Douglas would have been pleased his Guide was becoming so critical. Well frankly I'm ashamed that this thread is on h2g2. Read what was put in the Guide when Douglas was in charge at the beginning. It contains some really cool, zanny entries. It's not about creating an encyclopaedia.

I'm sorry, if I'm offending anyone. You just made me cross.

It's alright, Barton -- we still love you.


Mikey

Hey GTBacchus --

Actually, though I was not aware of this at the time, PlayboyReporter has three Edited Guide entries, from 'way back in early and mid 2000. So *he* was not at all new here.

I see your point about pedantry, and do not deny that I am one. I am such a perfectionist, about my own work, that it probably makes me less than sensitive about other people having a different approach to things.

And I agree that my actions were part of why he left. I can take responsibility for my end of what happened, and I hope I am doing so. I simply shan't take responsibility for his decision. Especially when he already had three Edited entries, I should think he might have known better than to either write so haphazardly, or to have suggested Mikey and I should 'sub-edit' for him. Knowing he'd been around here for a year and a half (as opposed to my three weeks) actually has reduced the generosity of my feelings over some of the things he said.

It is very worthwhile, to encourage each other, and commend each other for the successes we are each/all having working together and separately in this 'place'. I admire the Scouts, whose job description is 'cheerleader' to a large extent. I admire them particularly because I know my limitations as far as 'cheerleading'. I can only do it if I am legitimately enthusiastic, and it takes demonstrations of enormous potential to make me enthusiastic. (I came upon enthusiasm very late in life, and have not really got the hang of it. I know how to *not* be down-putting. I'll exercise that muscle more.) When people are being peers, acting/thinking behaving as peers, the *teacher* dynamic is much less likely to surface. I did pick up the friendly and noncondescending attitude here, and I like it very much. So long as communication happens, that is ideal, and I certainly prefer it to getting wound up and intense and making scenes. I *am* English, and middle-aged, and one does not make scenes. One certainly prefers to de-fuse them, or avoid them altogether, than to end up in the epicentre of the damn things.

Twice, I tried to say to him 'this project is just too big, and I don't believe it is feasible for *anyone*'. I was told that my 'political rant' was 'funny'. At that point, I despaired of speaking to PlayboyReporter as a peer, because it was not just *my* comments which he misunderstood, or ignored. In future, I know to just *leave*, rather than trying to make any sort of point, if the communication is so not happening.

One of the primary reasons I did not just *leave* was that I found parts of his article quite offensive, and in areas where I am a specialist. Flippant comments, in any context, about mental illness, are in roughly the same taste as rapist jokes. No one else seemed to 'get' how very unacceptable his comments were. Perhaps mental illness is still regarded as an appropriate object of humour in the UK? His Vincent van Gogh comment, in addition to being factually completely off-target, was downright demeaning, to people with mental illnesses, and to genii. He obviously thought he was quite clever with his remarks.

Total candour here: if a man here wrote a paper with a section on What It's Like to be Female, women would be all over him in a flash, and most men too, right? He would not even have to stereotype or misrepresent what it tis to be female; the idea that he thought he could be authoritative on the subject is messed up, in and of itself. You would question his motivations and ideas, and find the whole thing rather unacceptable, would you not? Likewise, if a person of Caucasian ancestry set about to explain racism, from the perspective of the people of other races, this would be cause for mental alarms to sound, would it not? I assume so. I earnestly *hope* so. If someone wrote anything about Hinduism, from a position of pure ignorance, and got it Wrong, I, who was raised Hindu, would have some things to say, and I expect you would support and endorse my right to say those things, and *to see them corrected*. Am I right so far?

I am a genius, among other things. Why should a member of a minority like 'genius' -- of whom there is no shortage around here, but we are still a minority -- have to sit still for stereotypes, trivialisation, inaccuracy, and the publication of fallacies about a group that is misunderstood enough as it is, thank you? *Should* such a person have to sit still for it, and if so, why, please? I found the discussion of genius, by this person who is not one, silly, rude, and obnoxious.

Now, I know, (and have known since I started school) it's Not Nice to admit one is different from other people in this way. Having to make Nice, and hide it, are part of the alienation that genii suffer at the hands of society: 'Don't tell me you are smarter than I, because it's not nice. If you do, I'll boo-hoo about how bad *you* made me feel. Then it will be all your fault, and I can regain the moral upper-hand, even if I have just said any number of false, misleading and/or stupid things about you in print.' I refuse to play along with this particular self-victimising charade. It used to be Not Nice to *admit* one was gay. It is still Not Nice to *admit* one is an incest survivor.

The Hell with Nice! The things he said under his discussion of 'genius' were wrong, and insulting. He had no substance, just that sickening graphic, in the section on 'Genius, IQ, and Madness', except for his incorrect use of Vincent van Gogh as an example. I have been involved in the mental health field since I was 24. I have studied these phenomena at length, and in depth. Please tell me why I should ignore glaring inaccuracies and trivialising generalisations about people like *me*. Would you?

Then you can talk to me about not scaring off the 'newbies', as I have been here a full 3 weeks now. I am a woman of colour, who lived most of her life in affectional relationships with other women. I am a foreigner, regardless of where I live, because my family was Mixed. I am an outspoken defender of human equality (not equivalence, or sameness, but equality) and at no time did I say (or even think) 'You are too stupid to write about genius'. I *did* say 'genius', for those of us who are, is something that is virtually impossible to explain to people who are not. Should I have not said that, and if not, why not? I found his remarks insulting, but when I tried to say something of the kind, he told me the topic of intelligence is 'controversial', and someone or other is bound to be offended whenever anyone discusses 'controversial' subjects. That was evasive, inaccurate, and inconsiderate. If it were race or national origin, you and everyone else here would have spotted that at once. It was not. SOME folk spotted it at once, anyway; of course, they are also genii. It is *very* nice to be someplace where I don't have to be Exhibit A for that particular minority.

Genius is a stigma in a way that only other genii can understand, and they DO. I am intense. I did not say most of this, and certainly did not use these words, because PlayboyReporter was trying to create something, and I did not want to squelch his genuine efforts to make it better. AFTER I did my best, (and I do *not* agree that 'correcting' the paper was the wrong approach) to point out what was wrong, including quite a lot of fairly nerve-raw stuff about what it is like to be a really gifted child (which I could just as easily have left out, but I wanted to try to be understood... perhaps, for a change) and he went from oafish to hostile, I backed off.

I am not saying you attacked me. I am not even saying PlayboyReporter *attacked* me. I am saying there were *reasons* why I did not just let the thread drop. If I run across offensive stereotyping of *anyone* in *any* text here, I am likely to become noisy. If anyone reading this has a problem with that, please take it up with me by email, as I have nothing further to say on the subject, except that I would *hope*, here at h2g2, that I would not be the only person making herself noisy. That is not the impression I got of the place.

I did not come here to cause trouble. I came here, lord knows, like everyone else, to have fun. Where there are people, there are Stupid People Tricks. That article was tainted with one of the Stupidest People Tricks in existence: bland and thoughtless bigotry. When I tried to say something about it, I got blamed, as usual.

I'm disappointed, but not terribly surprised. It takes a lot to surprise an old soldier like me. I should have to be considerably more disappointed before I would consider leaving. I would have to feel that there was no hope of *fun*. Right this instant, I am not experiencing a zenith of 'fun'. I expect that will get better in a short while.

The *only* thing that would likely make it worse, is if someone reads this and gets all bent out of shape because I describe genii as a socially oppressed minority. If someone thinks that in doing so I trivialise *real* oppression, that someone should probably not be allowed on the Internet without supervision.

Arpeggio
Leïlah el Khalil Zendavesta, MAR

Just thought I'd point out that if you look at

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/info

you will see that in the list of posters who average the longest entries, y'all take the top several spots on the list.

And Arpeggio, I know what it's like when people get things so blatantly wrong in an area you know intimately -- to me, it almost feels like they've suddenly invaded my boundaries, my personal space, and I immediately want to go on a defensive rampage.

On a completely different and unrelated point, I feel the need to point out that I don't consider MPD/DID to inherently be a mental illness -- I've always seen it as a functional adaptation to a hostile environment. It's only when the environment becomes less hostile that it can start to become maladaptive in nature.

But then, that's a whole 'nother can of worms, and completely off-topic for this thread.


Mikey

Willy,

I certainly didn't mean to make you cross.

I will go back, re-read the thread one more time and see if that will make me change my mind about his behavior.

To the other issue you raise, there is no reason why 'zany' cannot and should not be a part of the guide. There's nothing wrong with be entertained and entertaining in our writing and the process of creating it. I certainly did not mean to suggest that and since I seem to have done, I apologize to you and anyone else who gets that from what I wrote.

The wonderful full thing about the original 'H2G2' in the book was that it was so delightfully entertaining while providing the needed information and understanding required. I think everyone here strives for that. Sometimes they strive so hard that they musts be restrained. Hence the remarks in the help section designed to curb over-zealous comedic efforts.

I am, also, *generally* friendly, curteous, kind, and reverent as I believe you will find if you track down some of my comments in other threads. I like helping other people. I like seeing their work blossom into something wondrous. I like knowing that I had something to do with that having happened. I like being here.

This Playboy Reporter however did somewhat more than misjudge the Peer Review. He displayed an almost classic hubris for which some god brought down vengeance.

No, I don't think that I am a god, demi-god, or immune to criticism myself. It just came about that all of these good people and myself (perhaps not so good but still just a person) chimed in and said some things that needed to be said to Playboy Reporter if he is going to grow up to be 'human.'

Given what he said and how he said it, I am sure he will hear essentially the same thing again and again in his life till he finally decides to pay attention to the message rather than the tone of voice which his own actions inspired and forced,

Before I began my tirade, I sighed. I sighed because I feared precisely that this might have been the result and because, in my life, I seem to be the one who is called upon to say these sorts of things.

Most of the time the person who hears such things from me, is enough of what is called a 'mensch' in Yiddish, a *person* with that word being the central aspect of the word 'personality,' to either put up a defense or to seek help for the issue.

I am equally ready for either situation.

And, yes, I realize I am making value judgements from my own point of view. You are a sub-editor, you, too, make value judgements for h2g2. I have no idea what your personal style of editing is, but I assume, based on the structure of the system and information about what things are in the works to be changed from Mark recently, that there is little time for you to do more than examine the thread and edit the article except for those times when you are also forced to re-write the article as well. And, due to the way things seem to be structured right now, what you sub-editors do is not open to discussion even with the author.

I am not blaming you or any other sub-editor, I have no reason to believe that any of you are not doing what seems best for h2g2 and which you are encouraged to do by those higher up who are, in turn, making similar value judgements.

This has self-evidently worked. H2G2 is getting things done. You are getting things done. We are getting things done -- good things from each level.

This was not a common event nor was it unique. I have seen the need for close editing at this level, have provided it, and have been rewarded to see improvements. Most people who post in Peer Review are dying for cricism. They know they are surrounded by accomplished peers and are eager for help, suggestions, and direction.

Playboy Reporter was not. I finally pointed out that he was not and he climbed in, turned the key, revved the engine, and drove off in his Huff blowing smoke out the exahust like so much flatulent effluent.

I'm sorry he was unhappy, I'm sorry I was part of why he was unhappy, but I'm not sorry he left.

Now I'll go read again.

Barton

Barton -

Simulposts. I agree. You knew that.

Arpeggio

Mikey --

I readily believe my posts are among the longest. That is not news.

If you go back and read what I wrote about mpd/did [sic] you will see that I did not say or suggest it is a mental illness. Um, we wouldn't say that. We've spent a lot of time explaining that to people. It falls into the 'only possible if you are a genius' category of psychological phenomena, and that was its only relationship to the topic as it stood. And yes, it's off topic for this thread, but it was in my revision of that article.

A defensive rampage? Possibly.

Arpeggio for LeKZ

Willy,


Sorry, I went back through all that for the third time and I'll have to stand behind my "flip, rude, inconsiderate, and unthinking." I don't even think it's close to be a real judgment call.

If we disagree on this and you want to pursue it, I suspect we are going to have to get down to definitions amd come up with a common language, then I would need to show you exact instances where I feel those terms apply.

If you want to do this then let's get to it as soon as you have time. I suggest you start with your definitions since I would be tempted to illustrate with quotations which would be putting the cart before the horse.

If you like, you may post in my 'Space' or you can post here.

I am at your disposal, subject to limitations of getting the work done that puts bread on the table.

-----------------------------------------------
-
I hope that someone 'yikesed' my entry above because it was duplicated so many times and not because I offened some issue of the House rules and regulations.

From reading my own copy of that posting, I don't see where I wrote anything that should have caused that sort of issue. If so, I hope to hear about the exact nature of the problem.

Meanwhile if anyone wants to see what was missing, you may go to my 'Space' and email me for a copy of the text.

Thanks

Barton

Barton,

I've re-re-re-re-read the thread, too. I agree with you. Especially in light of the fact that PlayboyReporter had been writing at h2g2 since 03/2000 at the latest (that's the date on his first Edited entry), he had no grounds upon which to be so confused about the functions of Peer Review, sub-editing, or what the Eds want in an article.

The information on what they want is clearly and specifically stated, and would be hard, to my imagination, to misunderstand. The fact is, nothing in the condition in which that article was, regarding spelling and punctuation, leave aside content, is supposed to be in Peer Review at all. They say: 'so far as you, the Researcher, are concerned, the article should be done, finished, before you present it for Peer Review.' (I paraphrased). It is unambiguous. I further verified this with a Scout, who said that indeed, one is expected to have spelling, grammar, puncuation, links, facts, and content *finished* before posting. This makes sense. There are plenty of people here who can spend their time reading and recommending articles that are in *good* shape.

The content of the article was almost entirely based upon comments in the thread, strung together. That is not what is meant by the word 'Researcher'. I'd call it 'leech', maybe. Here's a subject about which I admit I know nothing, so I'll post a small amount of nothing, and wait for other people to tell me what should go into the article, and then I'll paraphrase them and add the content and call it 'mine'. I cannot imagine *why* anyone would do that. In college or university, there is at least a degree riding on cheating. Here? I have no idea.

PlayboyReporter seemed to think devoting a half hour here and there to fixing up some little thing was 'work'. It took me the better part of a day to go through that paper and mark spelling, punctuation, syntax, content, grammar, conceptual problems, and put in my content in the one place I felt needed it. Why would I waste my time? It seemed to me, from what people were saying, that this article might be going somewhere. I felt bad for the kid, whom I assumed to have a Learning Disability. He may have had one, but no LD excuses circular reasoning, or the inability to edit using a word-processor with a spelling and grammar checker. His paper did not need a little tidying up; it was a mess from beginning to end.

I saw your posting, Barton, and I do not believe you said anything in violation of any House Rules. You were clear about your opinion. I do not think there is anything wrong with being clear, nor do I imagine it contravenes any Rule.

What I am seeing, and I don't like it, but I have seen it enough to recongnise the pattern when it strikes, is PlayboyReporter winning by the Poor Baby Factor. He chose not to be a mensch and stand up for himself. He decided to take his marbles and go home.

You and I, Barton, are Horrid Intellectuals, who unrepentantly admit to disliking Poor Babies. The worst thing I did was say, openly, that I did not do anything I feel I should be sorry about. Unapologetic gets the opposite of the Poor Baby vote. So does 'correct'. Unapologetically correct is one of those sins that protectors of Poor Babies everywhere never forgive. PlayboyReporter has the advantage of us. Neither of us is sleazing out of here. We're looking ourselves and other people in the eye and saying, 'I still think I'm right, and I did nothing for which I should be sorry.'

I hate this. I thought it was a function of the squidgy pathological rescuers who go into ministry, when I was in seminary. I see that is not the case. It seems most people cannot identify with the unapologetically right, but identify readily with the irredeemably pathetic. By having boo-hooed his way out of here, PlayboyReporter won people over, who just yesterday were telling him to get his head out from where he was keeping it and get a clue.

Oh well. I don't think I need to read that thread yet again, but I'm saving snips of quotations as items I might need, in the event that I've made enemies with my lack of contrition. I *hope* that is not the case, but I am not going to jump to conclusions. It does not feel nice, to feel as though I must arm myself with quotations, and be on the defensive, after it was *my* field through which that boy drove his tank. Something is not right about the way this is adding up, but Poor Baby math is notoriously screwy.

Arpeggio, who shan't back down, so don't bother.

I'd like to give my personal support to both Arpeggio and Barton - they have both done stirling work in Peer Review, and I have seen many good things flourish under their encouragement. I have heard it oft-said that writers must be nurtured, cared for, and protected. This is true - yet perhaps the same people lose sight of the critics, who must also be nurtured, cared for, and protected. h2g2 is a place for writers to improve their writing skills, yet it is equally a place for critics to improve their critiquing skills. The Guide needs writers - but arguably it needs critics more, for there are fewer of them. Let us not forget this in the hurry to find a scapegoat or several.

Xanthia - "Blessed are the Humans, for they shall be Fallible"

Kind words, gratefully accepted.

Harsh words, equally welcome.

Fair words are the fairest of all.

Barton