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

I do wonder how many times I need to say things before they will actually get through. LeKZ did not draw Peta's attention to her post. At the time she made the X-post to the helpdesk, it had already been referred by a moderator, so Peta was already going to see it. The purpose of LeKZ' post to the helpdesk was to ask for a long line of Xs in a SECOND post to be split up. To quote Peta: ----- > ".... I'd sorted out post 71. The continuous lines of XXX's didn't wrap, and they made the forum go to about 2 feet wide. I edited the post and put in a few line breaks which made the post wrap, which was just what Arpeggio *asked* me to do in this posting. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F63567?thread=127518 Hence, 'that's better, much cleaner'. I was just being helpful, as requested." ----- Lentilla - I've already agreed that the 'translation' of the post was in breach of the house rules. I'm not arguing that we should be free to insult anyone, and I don't believe I ever have argued that. I am saying that I don't perceive it as utterly offensive as has been claimed repeatedly here. Someone aiming to be hurtful could have done a *lot* better than that - that's not a threat, just the truth. Incidentally, it was not posted in a discussion about censorship, contrary to your claim. 'Liberation from Sequiturs' was the title at the time, and censorship had not come up till that point. Perhaps you should consider rereading that thread: you've claimed context before, which is an odd thing to claim in a thread which aims at no context...

Hoovooloo> "I have seen a very few of the posts coming from what LekZ claimed as a "four-year old child" personality." (part of post 134) HVL then went on to speculate about the consistency of spellings and suchlike, refer to diminished responsibility, and blah blah blah. I've appended a message from Pat - one such four year old child, and the only one that anyone has claimed was offensive - a claim I disagree with, of course. You can all judge for yourself whether it was offensive and whether it breached the rules - it's still visible for anyone to see in original context, and I've added a link. In answer to the 'genuine' question, there are a few things to note. The first is that while the personality is of a four year old child, that personality has been alive for much longer than four years: more like 30-ish. One might therefore expect discrepancies, no? The second is that children typically mis-spell and mis-pronounce consistently. Think back to spelling bees and such - you don't get random mis-spellings, you get mis-spellings because the correct spelling has not been learnt yet. Grammer, on the other hand, is typically more random. Finally, in phonics, most words have a single phonetic spelling, so a child who has been taught to spell by phonics, but not yet started to memorise the exceptions, will mis-spell those words which do not correspond with their phonetic spellings in a consistent manner. I don't mean to restart an 'is she/isn't she' debate here, because such things are unproductive: please take such things to email if you feel you have to. But I felt that the public questioning should at least be answered. ---------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F43348?thread=122449&show=20&skip=10 (post 24) Niwt, Im Pat and Im 4. How good did you rite when you were two years old? Huh? Please don't get on the kids case. You want to no what we had to deal with you can read the link above your post. We reely dont care if you cant read fonetik english. We have lots other problims rite now. I protect the littles here and that wasnt called for and I honistly dont apreciate it. Sory if this isnt polite and all but its been one of the crummyest 36 hours we can remember in 40 yeers. If you cant read it, we do have other frends who can. They helped us and the littles werent talking to you anyhow so please dont say nothing unless its constructive alrite? Brother. Theyre 2 year olds asken for help. Now theyre upset and crying and I gotta go. I am never this rude but that just was the worst thing you or anyone coulda said rite now. Pat

I'd just like to say that I *don't* object to being called a "suck up" for agreeing (retrospectively) with the suspension decision. In fact, I wouldn't object to being called anything at all by someone who complains about people trying to, and I quote, "obscure rational debate" only ten words after using the admirably rational and adult phrase "army of suck-ups". More power to your elbow, and please do carry on flinging those names around. Text is a difficult medium to communicate in, and anything anyone can do to make it perfectly clear where they're coming from is helpful, and phraseology like that definitely helps...

Lucinda - thanks for the response. It was a genuinely intended question, blah blah blah. I'm no expert on mps, so it did seem to me odd that what was being represented as a four year old didn't communicate like any four year old I've ever heard of. The assumption I made was that if a four year old is to communicate in this way, that communication must somehow have been "filtered" via a personality more competent to operate a PC. Now, if you're telling me that this assumption is not necessary to understand Pat, fine. I'm learning as I go here. But if there's one thing I've learned about the internet, it's not to take everything everyone says about themselves at face value. Ask yourself what you know for certain about LeKZ. Can you come up with a single incontrovertible fact beyond the obvious ones that (a) a person exists (b) they can use a PC? What do you know about me? What do you REALLY know about me?

I draw your attention to the case of Tracy Ash. Tracy Ash was a concerned woman. She had heard of comedian Chris Morris, and had heard that he had, in questionable taste, recorded a spoof sketch about a musical based on the life of Peter Sutcliffe, starring Sutcliffe himself (out on licence to act in the production)entitled "Ripper!". He had hoaxed celebrities into commenting on how terrible it was that such a thing could be allowed to happen. Miss Ash understood that although the sketch was cut from the original showing of the show "Brass Eye" in 1997, Channel 4 were intending to show the full, uncut version this year. She began a campaign to stop Channel 4 ever allowing this sketch to be shown. She was quoted in national newspapers, and ran a website where concerned members of the public could register their outrage. Fans of Chris Morris on the internet (and there are many) vilified this woman, decrying her as being against free speech and freedom of artistic expression. She received many emails protesting about her campaign. She did not respond, and the fans began discussing a proper response to her media campaign.

They carried on discussing it right up to the moment that it was revealed that Tracy Ash is in fact a creation of Chris Morris, and the whole thing had been a hoax, on the media in general and on the fans especially.

Relevance? Many people here defend LeKZ, and make statements based on what they know about her. How many of these people have met her? Have you? If you haven't, then all your information comes off the PC screen. The person using the name LeKZ is obviously articulate, well informed and highly intelligent, among other attributes. That would be (almost) impossible to fake. But as for anything else, take care. Think carefully. Read her off-H2G2 website - all of it . Consider objectively the reliability of the information you have. That's all I ask.

Thank you for your advice, Hoovooloo, on the nature of internet contacts, and the possibility of fraud. If I give you my grandmother's email address, perhaps you could send her instructions on the optimum method for sucking eggs?

-Xanthia

Good grief.
Rational debate, I love it.
Keep it up Martin.

I'm not stupid, I'm not gullible, and I'm well aware of such problems with the net; I have considered objectively the reliability of the information I have; I have thought carefully; I have taken care; I have read the off-h2g2 website. Just because I've come to a different conclusion to your good self doesn't mean that I'm being irrational, hard though that may be for you to believe.

But, like I said before, I don't want to restart the 'is she/isn't she' debate here, because such a thing would be unproductive and hurtful. Is that so very difficult to understand?

Not at all. It's perfectly understandable that a person would come to a different conclusion from the same information. I was just keen to establish that you actually *had* all that information, or at least more information than just the contacts you've had here. As you say, the "is she/isn't she" debate is potentially hurtful, apart from anything else, so that's as good a reason as any to drop it.

Thank you Hoovooloo - I do indeed have such information, from a variety of places. I'm glad we can move on.

Just a quick bit of Topic Drift

Lentilla mentioned that material which is profane is not allowed here and said that means no hardcore swearing.

Well 'profane' does NOT mean hardcore swearing.

Here is the definition:

1 : to treat (something sacred) with abuse, irreverence, or contempt : DESECRATE
2 : to debase by a wrong, unworthy, or vulgar use

1 : not concerned with religion or religious purposes : SECULAR
2 : not holy because unconsecrated, impure, or defiled : UNSANCTIFIED
3 : serving to debase or defile what is holy : IRREVERENT
4 a : not being among the initiated b : not possessing esoteric or expert knowledge

Profanity has an irreligous not a sexual content.

So by that definition we cannot say 'goddam' but we can say 'f**k it all to hell in a hand cart'

Sorry about the topic drift.

***B

Ben - I just read your space. Small point - the person who can be bothered to spell "Hooloovoo" correctly has in the past been a bit put out at being credited with something I said. My "v" comes before my "l" so it sounds a bit like "voodoo". Doesn't bother me, but as I say it's bothered the other person in the past...

Other than that - welcome back.

All corrected now, thank you, Hoovooloo.

an incredibly unobservant shade of the colour pink called Ben

Typos...

One 'typo' in the 'translation' has already been highlighted by Mycroft: "fucXXX" -> f-ing. There appears to be at least one more: in "pXrXXXlXXy"->"personality" there's a missing 'X'.

There may be more - I'm only just starting to work through Mycroft's methodology for myself. But I thought I'd throw in my results so far before I forget. I wonder what else will come out of this.

I do hope nobody is hiding information here - that would be very disturbing - and utterly unlike the people I have come to trust at h2g2...

Thanks for doing this Lucinda.

Once a person has been told what s/he will see, it's difficult NOT to see it.

Have LeKZ anywhere said anything about the methodology of how they came up with the original posting? I'd like to know more about that. Not Banned Yet, do you think we should still pursue this particular course?

I asked her the same question in another forum (n2g2) and she explained it to me. And I think she may have posted someting about it here.

I don't want to paraphrase her, and I am not able to quote, so all I can suggest is contacting her yourself.

***B

They're in the process of recreating it now. It's going to take them a while, since they didn't save the material they started from.

I don't think that there is any point in pursuing it here. Minds have been made up and LeKZ's specific situation is not going to change. Any attempt to go into that kind of detail here would probably either be interpreted as posting for a banned researcher or as an attempt to retrofit something less offensive into the original X post.

They're only recreating the original for themselves and a few friends, including you. When done, they'll put it up elsewhere and let you know here.

Puts one in mind of those "magic eye" pictures which were ubiquitous around 1994, or of Edgar Rubin's "vase/two profiles" drawing. If you aren't told what to see, it is not immediately obvious - in particular with the "magic eye" pictures, the appearance is of nothing but visual noise. Even if you *are* told what to see, it may still take some effort to see it. But once you can see it, it is *very* obvious, in fact difficult not to see.

It also becomes clear, after a little more thought, how much effort it takes to wilfully produce something like that, which is on the surface ambiguous and yet in fact contains sufficient information for a specific pattern to be reconstructed. Not sure of the relevance of the typos. Omission of the final "g" from "f******" would still leave an interpretable word with no typo required. No explanation or alternative to the personality one, though.

well, fucXXX clearly can be translated to 'freaked' or 'freaker', but neither fit the context, which demands some kind of adverb for 'XXcks'.

I spotted another one: 'XXXXoles' -> 'a-holes' is also missing an X.

'Jewish American Princess' also bothers me. LeKZ is part-Jewish, as I learnt in sea's thread on wicca, so such a comment would seem very odd coming from her mouth. I also can't see to whom it might refer. Obviously, saying who it refers to in public would be a bad idea, but if a translator could enlighten me by email: [email protected]

As HVL says, it is very difficult not to see something you have been told to see - which is why I'm relying as much as possible on automatic tools to do the job: I don't want there to be any possibility of bias by previous translations - and I have to say, it makes it a lot harder...

Anywho, I'm at the stage where all the words which have less than ten options are sorted out - about a quarter of them - now I need to do some kind of parts of speech testing, so I need a program of some kind for that too. I'll ask Mycroft - her's been very helpful so far

Tinkering on the edges...

XXXXoles is perfectly consistent and not a typo if you consider the US origin of the post and the tendency across the pond to refer to the posterior as something like a donkey rather than a word containing the letter "r" and sounding like its plural.

Similarly fucXXX is quite easily explicable as an adverb by making the reasonable assumption, again based on the generally US English used, that the final "g" has been dropped from the word, leavin somethin like these two words.

On a more obscure point, it's difficult following the progress of LeKZ retrospectively across the eclectic range of subjects she contributed to, and it's even more difficult sorting out the various personalities. Ones which were regular contributors included Auntie, Arpeggio, Kassandra, Pat and several others. All of these had distinct "voices". The offending posting was signed Kurtis, for LeKZ. Kurtis is an individual I have found nowhere else. While LeKZ may have Jewish ancestry, what of Kurtis? Is it valid to assume that *all* of LeKZ are of the same extraction/outlook? My opinion, based on retrospective observation only, is no. In which case the Jewish American Princess comment is not problematical.