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

Hello, Community!

I've never started a thread here before; I hope I do alright.

I'm not sure whether readers here will have already learned about the parody accounts that were created over the weekend. Their U-numbers range from U189490 to U189494 (five in a row), and they are all pretty transparent imitations/satires of five accounts that were (some admittedly, some allegedly) opened by the person/system/phenomenon that many of you probably know as LeKZ.

Four of the accounts, before getting settled in to their new identities, posted messages under the user names of veteran researchers, all of whom are known to have/to have had connections with LeKZ. At least one of these veterans was rather upset by this act of role-playing.

Whoever opened the accounts is either LeKZ, making fun of themselves (I don't consider this remotely likely, but you know me...), or is someone who has read a lot of things that LeKZ has written, here, on lists at Topica, and/or in private emails. This is evident from several of LeKZ' mannerisms being employed, not all of which have shown up on site before, to my knowledge. (No one has read ALL the backlog.)

Some people think this is funny. Some people think it is mean-spirited. At least two people *apologized* after hearing that others thought it was mean-spirited. One off-duty italic interacted (sparred?) with at least one of the parody accounts.

(I just realized that this must be incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't read the backlog. No one has read ALL the backlog. I'm sorry. I'm just not sure it would be appropriate for me to name many names here, though they're perfectly easy to find for anyone who's willing to click a few links. Just go to those U-pages and read their conversations. Unless you know nothing about the whole LeKZ saga, in which case... I dunno what to tell you. Raise your children well; treat them kindly. Don't turn your backs on things you know are wrong. Read books, smell flowers, don't smoke?)

Anyway, my purpose in starting this thread is to ask what people think of this. Is it funny? Is it cruel? We have a House Rule against impersonating other researchers (which our parodist(s) did 4 times). Should we have a House Rule against impersonating banned researchers? Does it matter that the impersonations were done for the purpose of mocking? Was that, in fact, the purpose? Does it matter whether the target and/or others were hurt?

One person has suggested that laughter is the best way of defusing a tense situation. This seems to have been an explanation for the parody (from someone who was pretty sure that it *was* a parody, and not a return(s) of LeKZ). What do we think of this?

Do the italics have an official position on whether this parody is an acceptable use of the website? One might infer that it is condoned, from the fact that an off-duty italic engaged at least one of the accounts in conversation, but then one might be wrong to infer that. As far as I know (and I just visited most of the Team's pages), there hasn't been any official word, and the parody U-pages are still up.

Ok, I write too much. I'll stop and let someone else.

GTB

If you mean me, you can say me. If you do mean me, I don't consider this account an 'off duty italic'. I've had it for over two years, well before I even thought about wanting a job at the towers and it's just me being me.

Other people's view of it might have changed, but mine hasn't.

From a 'relative' outsider's point off view..
This is juvenile stupidity of the worst sort...
It is not contributing anything useful to the site and in fact is raking over old ashes...
Anyone wishing to continue posting on the subject of banned researchers should restrict themselves to the appropriate threads...

By the way GTB, 'allegedly opened by...' no longer seems to apply: see Jim's comments on server logs in the same threads.

Wipe the pages and if the researcher responsible can be identified they should, as a minimum, receive a warning.

Can't we just get on with enjoying each others company without all this complete and utter bull....

whisky

Hi Mina.

Yeah, I meant you. I was erring on the side of caution. Thanks for your input.

I'm sorry if I mischaracterized you. *You* *are* an italic, and I would think "it's just me being me" is the definition of off-duty, but who am I to tell anyone else what they are or aren't? Me, I'm Alan Greenspan, and they keep telling me I should leave this website alone and manage the economy, but I can't resist being drawn in by our constant dramas, y'know?

It should be noted that at least one of those Researchers 'let slip' this by posting to one of my conversations pretending to be me posting from the 'wrong account'.

I find this objectionable on two counts:

1) I'm not an idiot - and if I wanted to I'd be quite capable of
running two accounts without making a mistake *IN THE FIRST TWO DAYS*

2) I'm not the sort of contemptible coward who'd do this kind of thing.

Impersonating active researchers is certainly against the house rules, and I'd want to see the owner of the account which tried to impersonate me dealt with appropriately, under those same rules, irrespective of whether impersonating a banned researcher is deemed to be acceptable or not.



Personally, I find these pages somewhat (but not hugely) offensive. I can see how others might find them hurtful. I don't find them particularly funny, but humour is in the eye of the beholder. I do find them in poor taste, but (fortunately) having poor taste is not yet against the House Rules.

- (the one and only) Lucinda

I do think it's cruel to mock the afflicted. The person with the fake french accent {Satyaselfdownandhaveacuppa}? posted on my personal space, and I told them so. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F41297?thread=164556&latest=1 I also spoke with two other researchers, one via email and one onsite and they thought exactly the same as myself. http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F52180?thread=142308&post=1703925#p1703925 post 53. ~GB~

You did good GTBacchus

even I can see that they are all the same person, its a bit yawn-making isn't it. One day maybe they'll give-up - sooner rather later I hope.

Well, I seem to be in a minority here.

I thought it was funny. More than that, it had me in stitches. I thought it was witty, accurate, pointed and hilarious. I was - quite literally at one point this weekend - laughing so much my sides hurt.

I also thought it was cruel.

But as one of the researchers who's name was hi-jacked (by FenceBlossomBoy), I *still* found it funny.

I also found it interesting. Yesterday I was issuing denials, and knowing that I had no control over whether or not they would be believed. Which was an interesting and evocative situation to be in. Hmmmm.

But like a lot of researchers here, my patience with LeKZ has finally snapped.

I have quoted here on site various insults which she has directed at me personally. I know that she is cyber-stalking one other researcher, repeatedly making phonecalls in the early hours of the morning. I know that she spits violent and venemous emails out, and follows them up a day or two later with overtures of friendship. I have had enough. And this is why I don't actually care that whoever did it did a cruel thing.

I am not even slightly surprised that someone finally decided to do a little gentle mickey-taking. If anything I am impressed by the restraint and the good humour of the parodies.

Oh and while I am at it, let me sign myself with one of her choicer gifts to my inbox, which seems appropriate in the circumstances:

an "unworthy, untrustworthy schmuck, f**k, nauseous and hurtful so-called friend" called Ben

and no - it wasn't me

Y'know, I almost feel like making a badge for the next meet that says "You Don't Have To Be LeKZ To Post Here, But It Helps".

Almost.

If a parody, it'd probably have been very much smarter if exposure had been kept away from public places like 'Ask h2g2', where loads of people who didn't know anything about the original events (lucky b*****ds) could have got a strange impression of what was happening, and might have ended up thinking that people taking things as fun were actually being seriously unpleasant for no obvious reason.

"...untrustworthy..."
I guess some people have no sense of irony. Maybe they left it in another personality.

You could try a T-shirt.
Front: 'I'm not LeKZ'
Back: 'Neither am I'

Or maybe a Spartacus parody.

"I'm LeKZ!"
"I'm LeKZ!"
"No, I'M LeKZ!"

Nawww, that's already been done

I'm Brian,
I'm Brian!
No, I'm Brian!

I can feel some provocative jokes bubbling up in the back of my head...

"How d'you fit 10,000 people in the back of a Mini?"

I did not find this funny at all. Mocking someone who can't answer back is unfair. If she came back and tried to defend herself, who would be blamed? Those who did the parody? I don't think so.

I hardly think someone not being here elevates them to 'sacred cow' status. I make mockery of those that, in my eyes, are deserving of being mocked.

If someone finds a joke I make in poor taste or offensive, hit the damn Yikes button. That's what it's there for.

However, I do not condone being deliberately offensive or abusive; I would define 'making fun' of someone to be fairly gentle and good humoured ribbing- being cheeky rather than malicious.

I would also like to point out that I am not responsible for the LeKZ parody accounts, but I found them funny.

They were kinda funny, especially little flowery poncey boy, whatever its name was. But having been told of the damage done in the past, I'm not sure how funny, this could ever be.

> "I hardly think someone not being here elevates them to 'sacred cow' status."

Certainly not - that would be the Italics' status...



> "If someone finds a joke I make in poor taste or offensive, hit the damn Yikes button. That's what it's there for."

This is rapidly off-topic, but I do feel that it's perfectly acceptable for people who are offended by something to say so publically as well as / instead of yikesing it. That's what happens in real life, after all, and it seems to work there...

N7, sorry, that wasn't aimed at you. It was aimed at the whole situation. No, not being here does not make someone a "sacred cow" but when that someone is banned, then it is a bit cruel. Suppose she had opened an account to say how upset she was with all of this. How many people would have said, oh look, she just can't help herself?
But it wasn't just that. Signing posts with the names of legit researchers like Lucinda and the others without permission is way out of line. I'd be annoyed if there was someone posting, and making out they were me.

I can take a joke as well as anyone, hell, I love jokes. This was wrong place, wrong time, wrong joke.

I've said my bit. Now I'm off to roam. Hopefully

Funny-private, and funny-public are different matters. Posting on selected homepages would have been rather better than jumping into conversations, or starting seriously visible threads.

Starting five accounts was also rather overkill, and significantly multiplied the chances of misinterpretation.

I'm curious about GTB's ideas on the source of some of the material. If the only possible source for some material was discussions on a (limited-access?) offsite forum, or private emails, that must narrow down the possible posters somewhat from the pool of people involved in (or lurking on) the Q____ and S____ banning threads.