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

Oi close some windows round here - its freezing

Incidentally - just out of interest - have any department stores ever been sued by an asthmatic. I'd be interested because walking into the perfumery area seems to generally cause asphyxiation.

Gives the phrase 'lifetime suspension' a whole new context...

I remember buying a bag of "fragranced" cat-litter once. The blue particles used to soak up the smell of the urine.

Don't believe it!
The cat litter smelt worse than what the cat did!

*wonders why Orcus is walking through perfume departments*

To get to the knicker section of the store obviously

I'm breaking a promised silence here to respond to something I least expected - an apology, of sorts, made in an external forum. This is for Barton.

Thank you for taking the time to do some research. I do feel (surprise!) that the characterisation of me is (slightly) unfair. You've based a reading of me on the entry on Centrifugal force. I wish you'd picked *any* other, as that became quite heated. I wrote the entry in the first place after an Edited Entry made reference to satellites being "held up" by CF. Other than a trifle on contact juggling, it was my first entry. I wasn't ready for the criticism, and it did get heated. But as heated as it got, my most fiendish disputant, Hell, and I parted on good terms. I don't think we agree, even now. But we do see each other's point, and he's contributed to other entries of mine since. And I did make significant changes to the entry as a result of the large amount of criticism it got. It is also worth noting that, just as that entry was inspired by something I saw as an error in the entry on gravity, so the CF entry has inspired another on inertial frames of reference and Mach's principle by another researcher. He disagrees with me. But I'm looking forward to reading his entry.

On the point of starting the entry with a dictionary quote - the thread covered it. This is H2G2, not a physics textbook. If just one person actually goes and opens a physics textbook as a result of reading that entry, I should be well pleased.

As for approaching problems with preconceived solutions - guilty, sometimes. I am surprised, however, that *you* in particular say I do "not acknowledge the possibility of alternative interpretations unless confronted with superior authority or overwhelming rejection". I wrote an entry on science fiction genres. I posited three - hard sf, soft sf, fantasy sf. Three it remained, despite wide ranging debate. Then you made a comment - not superior authority, not overwhelming rejection - just an extremely well made and pertinent point that two was probably more better than three. It was so well put that I immediately gutted the entry and rewrote it according to your suggestion. And as soon as the entry was recommended, I made sure (as I try to with all the entries I write) that I included a note to the subed asking that all the researchers who contributed should share the credit. In the particular case of the sf entry, you were top of that list because your constructive criticism led to a fundamental change in the entry. I've thanked you for that there, and I thank you once more here.

The Guide Entries I've written, I've written because I wanted those entries in and nobody else was doing them. In some cases (eg. Jet Engines), I began writing them as linking articles between other entries, knowing full well that I didn't know enough to complete them - I'm just an enthusastic amateur. But I *started*, and reactions to the entries have led to them being improved greatly. I'm not precious about my prose. If what I write is wrong, or badly phrased, or whatever, and someone tells me, often it gets changed. Ask any of the researchers I've credited at the bottom of the entries. Or simply read the threads. I argue, but I listen too. You might say that this leads to a watering down of the entry. Perhaps. I don't know what can be done about that, but dogmatic insistence on my text and nothing else is not my style. I did slightly overreact about the grammar in the CJ entry - I try to write grammatically (and by the standards of engineers I know I like to think I do quite well) and the introduction of actual mistakes in the editing process wasn't something I was expecting. On the other hand, getting an italic on my case *was* kind of fun, because by the time they'd noticed there was a problem, it had *already* been sorted out very congenially with the subed.

Before I go and sun myself on a rock...
I've argued, and I've listened. In some cases I've obviously not listened carefully enough. You've apologised to me (under/on rock comments notwithstanding). I'm extending an apology to everyone I've offended or annoyed by becoming involved in this. I wish now that I hadn't.

I said before that I wouldn't post on this subject again. The sheer shock of getting an apology made me break my promised silence. Nothing anyone can do here or elsewhere can shock me that much again.

I did promise to post the independent translation, if it is completed. I still shall. I shall not comment in any way, now or then.

That's all.

> "Lucinda - Hoovooloo has done his damndest to get an independent arbitration on what the xxxxs 'really' say. He deserves better than to be slagged on or off site."

And I've thanked him for that, here in this thread. I'm not aware of any time when I've slagged him on or off site, nor defended any such slagging. Am I being confused with someone else? Or has something I said been ambiguous? Or has 'teaching your grandmother to suck eggs' become profane without me realising it?

Lucinda - confused, sadly.

On a side note, could someone fill me in on what posts 297-298 were - they appear to be permanently hidden, and the conversation seems to have responded to them.

Though obviously don't break the house rules to tell me!

Thanks,
Lucinda

Well, I reckon there are many different messages - but they aren't 'entirely different', as you said. For example, (complete) XXXXXs could be replaced by 'vogons' or 'losers' or a bunch of terms and still fit the space and context - it wouldn't change the flow of the 'translation', but it would increase or decrease the perceived offensiveness of the post.

Whether it is fair to judge the post on the most offensive such choices, or the least, or the most probable, I leave up to y'all...

But not all of the posting can be so easily blunted... for example, the only possible substitute for 'disembowel' is 'disempower', which doesn't fit the context.

Howdy, folks! I was hoping this conversation would have moved to more general topics, like ‘what justifies a life banning?’ but I guess not... I hate to keep bringing up the hot topic - I know everyone's tired of hearing about it by now, but I think there are some issues yet to be resolved.

Lucinda said: “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.”

I suppose she could have, but she was pretty hurtful, all the same. Calling Mark a ‘sleazy politician’ and saying mean things about Peta’s children is not my idea of acceptable behavior. But (as I’ll say farther along in this post) she has a problem with putting things mildly, so in the context of other posts, no, it wasn’t that bad. But it was bad enough to be the proverbial back-breaking straw, if you know what I mean.

“Incidentally, it was not posted in a discussion about censorship, contrary to your claim.... 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...”

Agreed - I never got a chance to read the entire thread, but I read the postings on that page that led to the XX posts. Those postings were complaints about the moderation system. When I complained about context, it was your ‘Jack and Rita’ translation of Arpeggio’s post. You had suggested that the XX post might have a completely different interpretation. I’m a big fan of Occam’s Razor - in the context of the situation, for the post to be about Jack and Rita was very unlikely.

For those that are being unduly paranoid - David Conroy (Not Banned Yet ) is Arpeggio’s good friend.

a girl called Ben mentioned that ‘profane’ does not mean hardcore swearing. You must have the same dictionary I do - it’s the same definition. No, she didn’t curse anything sacred, certainly. I was thinking of profanity as the cuss words that we all out. I think that was h2g2's intention when they put that in the rules, but I can't be sure.

Reading Arpeggio’s Apologia: I have a few comments. I know that her and her staunch defenders say that the post was supposed to be a joke - unfortunately an unsuccessful one. She wants us to take the post at face value, and ignore any possible content, because it’s intended to be complete nonsense. It doesn’t track. Why go to all that trouble - why insert real words into what is supposed to be a nonsense post? I’ve been sorting out the unbroken line of X’s that she provided on another website (Topica). The interpretation of that jumbled message is remarkably similar to the translation that Mycroft and others have extracted. I’m not as good at decoding as you guys but I can already tell you that after five minutes, I’ve found ‘sleazy politician’ and ‘renders her unfit for the...’ Maybe I’ll sit with it a while longer and see what else I can find, but I think it’s the same message that has been translated by so many others.

I’m sorry, LeKZ. I've given what you said a lot of thought, but it doesn't track. I can’t take it as a visual joke, or a pun, or anything other than a message. Yes, you censored yourself, but you left enough clues in so the sharpest tacks in this box could figure it out. What I don't understand is despite the overwhelming evidence of your intent, you still claim that this was a joke, and devoid of any meaning we might want to read into it.

Basically, what I’ve gathered out of all this is that people are saying “LeKZ has many good points - why was she banned for life? And what’s to keep h2g2 from banning us?” Yes, LeKZ has many good points - she provided inspiration and support for many who need it here... but at the same time, she was attacking those whose attitudes she had a problem with. She became very upset at personal criticism - to the point where she said she felt physicaly ill. This is not a good combination for somebody who feels as strongly about certain issues as she does. The only conclusion I can come up with after observing her behavior is that she was banned because she took things too seriously. Maybe that’s a little flip, but essentially her posts tended to be emotional and off the cuff - it was obvious that she was typing from the heart. We should all be doing that - I think we should all take things a little more seriously. But we have to not take it so hard when somebody disagrees with us or has a problem with our behavior. This was LeKZ’s problem, and the basic reason why she was banned.

Okay. All done now. I vote that we move this conversation to more constructive topics, and table the problem of Arpeggio for now. We'll wait for the translation... although I think Mycroft should have a copy of the unbroken line of XXs that Arpeggio says is the original post.

Look, I was going to stay out of this, but unfortunitly Arpeggio won't let it drop.

For those who haven't seen it already go to Lucinda's space and you'll find a link to a discussion list Arpeggio has started on topica. Click on that and there she is - continuing to spread her poison. Now I'm afraid I can't sit back and let her continue to rant away when theres a link to that place on h2g2.

If you read her postings they are basically an ongoing serious of extremely nasty 'smears' about Mark Moxen, the h2g2 staff, myself and any one else she considers the 'enermy' Shes also planning ways to try to further disrupt h2g2.

A few things shes discussing: Ways to discredit Mark Moxen and get him in trouble with the BBC. Writers strikes to try to destroy h2g2. Savings all text files for the possibility of lawsuits against h2g2. She compares her cause of 'justice' to the Cuban revolution and the civil rights movements of the 60's. Hate to tell you this, but it seems shes actually serious!

My opinion about the events leading to her being banned is that she has wholly manufactured the whole thing from start to finish.

She has done everything possible to disrupt and upset other people. She did everything possible to get herself suspended. Then she did everything possible to get herself banned.

The X's out postings she manufactured to get herself banned on purpose. Thats very clear. There are alternative meanings for each individual word but when you take each word IN CONTEXT there is a single unique message (or almost unique message) which is the about the most vicious, hate filled message you could make. People who say she shouldn't be banned need to have their heads examined. The house rules are very clear.

The fact that she X'd out the message doesn't excuse it - if the meaning of the message is clear then its just the same as if she posted it without the X's. She's done it delibrately to manufacture a controversy and get herself banned on purpose. This is probably so that she can now yell 'injustice!' and try to instigate frivilous lawsuits.

She has aquired a tiny band of seriously deluded 'followers'. The blind devotion of these followers to Arpegggio is comparable to the devotion of those in religious cults. This includes: Total failure to question anything Arpeggio says or does, total devotion to Arpeggio, over looking or excusing all abuse on the part of Arpeggio or rationalizing it away as a conspiracy or 'harmless mistakes' on Arpeggio's part. Tremendous need for the love and affection of Arpeggio and great 'Terror, Torment and Grief' at even minor critisim from Arpeggio.

In fact the mailing lists with Arpeggio read exactly as if she is the 'guru' of some bizarre cult.

The techniques she has used to recruit these 'followers' and try to discredit her perceieved 'enermies' is in fact very similair to the propoganda techniques used by cults and cranks every where.

She spend a considerable period of time engaged in a 'smear' campaign against me, a compaign with which shes had considerable amount of success.

I feel she has been manipulating people with the 'poor baby' factor from start to finish.

Some of her claims: I have a multiple personality, I was abused as a child (recovered 'memories'), I have a eating disorder, I have been involved with a 'military mind control unit'. ALL of these claims are highly controversial amongst professional psychologists. And in light of Arpeggio's behaviour I think we need to seriously question her credibility.

Her main 'poor baby' technique, was to start being extermely aggressive and abusive towards someone she didn't like. As soon as this someone started to answer back she would immediately appeal to one of the above 'poor baby' factors and start complaigning about discrimination - this was effective at 'roping in' suuporters, who could then do her dirty work for her, 'smearing' and absuing anyone she didn't like.

The 'poor baby' factor with which she's had the most success is the claim that there is an anti-intellectual conspiracy at h2g2 designed to 'get all the smart people' Unfortunitly Barton and others seem to have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.

You know I asked people in the 'Intelligence' thread to post their IQ posts and its clear that all the 'regulars' at h2g2 have IQ's far above average. I'm no slouch at an IQ test myself you know! In short, h2g2 is about one of the most intellectual places on the web you can find, and Arpeggio's claim would be utterly laughable if it were not for the fact that Barton and her other followers seem to have totally and utterly lost the faculty of critical thought since Arpeggio began to apply her brain washing techniqes on them!

Arpeggio has banned by h2g2. This was done only after many warnings and because she posted one of the nastinest messages she could think of. She has been discredited and disgraced. Its the h2g2 support staff who run the site and they decide who runs the site. You don't like it then buzz off and find some other web site!

Now after all this, I find that Lucinda has put up a link on h2g2 which connects to a website where Arpeggio can continue to hurl her sick abuse at the h2g2 support staff and myself and I'm supposed to sit here and say nothing! I find shes plotting ways to destroy h2g2 and people are going along with it! I think Lucinda and every one else on that mailing list needs to have their heads examined!

To all Arpeggio's followers I've give you one last messgage: You've been seriously duped! Stop talking to Arpeggio and stop mentioning her on h2g2! Have nothing more to do this woman! Stop acting like idiots and come back to reality or you will eventually be jolted forcefully back to reality and you will not like it!

To Arpeggio: Your stupid mind tricks won't work on me, they won't work on the italics, they wont work on the BBC, and wont work on the vast majority of decent people at h2g2! And since none of the h2g2 support staff are US citizens, and I am not a US citizen either, your courts have no juridiction over us, and any lawsuits you bring to bear would be good only for toilet paper!

>> , but unfortunitly Arpeggio won't let it drop

b******s. Arp is not here to do anything.

Lucinda,

I may have got the wrong end of the stick, but it seemed to me that you had directed Hoovooloo to somewhere off-site where he was being discussed.

I know these discussions are going on, and I am no more prepared to participate in them than I am prepered to participate in discussions here about LeKZ.

For that reason:

Me too

Fascinating! Welcome back Playboy Reporter!

Normally I'd paraphrase a comment I'm referring back to, but I just can't do you justice, so I'll quote you in your entirety before responding. More unfortunately, I'm at work, so can't spend the time on this response that I'd like to.

"f you read her postings they are basically an ongoing serious of extremely nasty 'smears' about
Mark Moxen, the h2g2 staff, myself and any one else she considers the 'enermy' Shes also planning
ways to try to further disrupt h2g2."

Unfortunately, you've picked up the wrong end of the stick. Perhaps you would have been better posting on that site, since you're referring to items written there. That site is open to all, and we have stated firmly that you would be welcome to post your opinions; it's not difficult. No one is "smearing" anyone. That area is a forum for openness, and unfortunately experiences here have made that area necessary. No, she is not planning "ways to try to further disrupt h2g2". Yes, she is intent on being heard and understood.

"...a discussion list Arpeggio has started on topica. Click on that and there she is - continuing to spread her poison." Excuse me? Poison is a bit strong. I am a fairly objective observer (rather than a "seriously deluded 'followers'"); most who post there are strong and opinionated people, and I very much disagree with your opinion about what constitutes poison.

If she XXX'ed out her message on purpose, why are you so worked up about it? " She's done it delibrately to manufacture a controversy and get herself banned on purpose. This is probably so that she can now yell 'injustice!' and try to instigate frivilous lawsuits." Fancy! I didn't realise she was pretending so much of her disgust! Thank you for explaining.

"The blind devotion of these followers to Arpegggio is comparable to the devotion of those in religious cults. This includes: Total failure to question anything Arpeggio says or does, total devotion to Arpeggio, over looking or excusing all abuse on the part of Arpeggio or rationalizing it away as a conspiracy or 'harmless mistakes' on Arpeggio's part." I wish I could be sarcastic about this paragraph, but it's not in my nature. I don't think I can answer this, without you responding that I'm completely under her sway. Suffice to say that I *do* act objectively, pointing to perceived mistakes in attitude, questionning and disregarding that which doesn't make sense. I would say I was a friend. I wouldn't say I was a follower.


"She spend a considerable period of time engaged in a 'smear' campaign against me, a compaign with which shes had considerable amount of success." Simply not true. If there's any work been done on this campaign, you've done it yourself.

"And in light of Arpeggio's behaviour I think we need to seriously question her credibility." I thought we'd turned the corner to positive thought? Last week? Certainly, this thread was getting better and looking more on a macro than micro scale.

Got to go, now.

x x Fenny (disgusted)

The postings are hidden because they were yikesed by the author and referred over to me in Peta's absence.

They do not contravene the house rules.

Hello,

I have been a part of H2G2 during this whole debacle and am getting increasingly tired of being here. I have tried to maintain a neutral and objective stance towards events here, but I'm growing increasingly tired of the way some people on both sides have radicalized the discourse to such a level that you're either a dupe or a syncophant or a lynch mob or insane or whatever. Not only does this not serve to make things better, it's basically a way to stifle any further discourse or browbeat/denigrate most of the people on this site who have stayed in the middle.

Lucinda actually posted the link to the mailing list on his page by the request of several researchers here who were involved in a more calm and reasoned debate and wanted to see what was being said on messages that were referenced but obviously never quoted. It was a polite step on Lucinda's (and the list's) part, and not an attempt to "spread poison" throughout H2G2. Try to jump to conclusions without hitting your head: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F71894&thread=127866&skip=20

And yes, I am now a member of that list. I have not joined in an attempt to bring down H2G2 or fly the banner of glorious revolution (in all honesty, the notion of any revolution around a website seems absurd). Instead, I am merely trying to reconcile the parties as much as I can and find a positive course of action to examine what went wrong and how we can improve things in the future. We went through a similar process of discussion after the whole Intelligence thread blew up.

Yes, I find the words get out of hand on both sides. I'm not a brainwashed supported of Arpeggio or the Italics, but I will complain when I think things have stepped out of line. And I think you've gone too far here.

Yours,
Jake

The postings have now been unhidden.

"I will complain when I think things have stepped out of line. And I think you've gone too far here."

This seems to be a direct reply to my posting of earlier this afternoon. Was it aimed at me? I think not but some clarification would be nice.

Abi