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

Please post character witness statements against the ban of Quincy here.

"we think it's completely obvious that it's LeKZ."
I would like some more info on why you think that.
I don't think giving (medical) advise is against this site's rules. Please point me to the section that states so.
I feel that the Condolence thread is not a nice place overall. There've been a lot of harsh words on a lot of sides. (I stayed out of that discussion right from the beginning; I would have been caught in the crossfire.) If the Italics feel that Quincy should be reprimanded for hir postings, I feel that *for the condolence thread alone* a week's suspension is adequate.
I reserve my final statements until you tell me more about the medical advise and the LeKz side of the matter.

Thanks.
Tube
SBVM

For completely selfish reasons, I wouldn't want to see "Quincy" banned - he's promised to write an entry for a Uni project I'm involved in, and I think he'd make a good job of it.

One flame on its own would seem grounds for warning, or suspension, rather than life ban, especially given the contrite apologies following it.

One bit of discussion of drugs (it didn't prescribe dosages or anything, I think) would equally seem, perhaps a little ill-advised, but then Quincy did top and tail it with the advice "talk to your doctor", which would seem to me to be reasonable, and not grounds for much more than a warning.

So - please don't ban Quincy UNLESS it turns out to be LeKZ. See the "Ban Quincy" thread.

H.

I debate and debate with myself about this, because my English is so bad to express what I want, I wish was time to find a person to translate. I must do what I must, in conscience and satyagraha.

May my words be understandable. I hope you all hear what I mean, and if you don't know what is satyagraha, now is good time to check google.
---------------------------------------------------------------
I come looking for what is happening in the community, and look what is it? This is truely bizarre turn of events. We are suppose to post character-witnessings in behalf of someone whom the Editors, who have all power at h2g2, have told everybody what they are sure he did. He is supposed to be guilty of being someone else, whom they have outcast FOREVER (except for the part about people coming back behaving themselves, which they say is all right on this page). Quincy is as new as I, and he cannot speak for him self. They are asking us to defend him on basis of his character, if we know him or not.

Well since it is my natural impulse to wonder about justice, when the power of charging and sentence and carrying out the fusillade are in the SAME hands, I must try to speak in behalf of the silenced Quincy. He and I could be in opposite places and I have read his words and believe he would do for me, so how can I not speak for him? I know absolutely nothing of this one LeKZ. I have never seen nor heared of the banning of that one. I hope there was nothing as questionable about that as there is to my eyes here.

I must speak on the basis of what I see, and what I see makes it certain I will both keep my account here, and not return for some time, or unless Quincy's name at least is clear.

What I do know and can see is the words the Editors, who have all the power, present for their case for our discussion.

I quote from the Editors:

'Quincy has been suspended for one week, pending a life ban. This is because we have received a number of complaints from members of the h2g2 Community claiming that Quincy is the banned Researcher LeKZ, and having looked at Quincy's activities, we think it's completely obvious that it's LeKZ.'

My opinion, this is prejudicial. Theyre statement is 'completely obvious' coming as it does from the position of power, weigh more than my saying 'what proof do you have beside your opinions'? There is no answer to Tube asking that. What if they have no proof? If they do, would they withold it for some reason?

'A number of complaints from members... claiming...' is hear say, is it not? That is not evidence to my eyes. Can this be proven? If a number (what number? 3, 79, 400? that could make the difference too, eh?) of people claim to my appartement management that I am bringing home the teenagers and feeding them drogues, I need to have this proven against me. I cannot be evicted on hear say. Could be the people in my building are not nice, or we have quarrelled, or they find me eccentric (that would be truth), or is just fun to gossip too, non? Proof, or there is not a case, and so far I see not proof.

'As with all cases of banned Researchers who return to h2g2, we don't really care unless that Researcher starts causing problems.'

Evidently the SINGLE exception to this is the person LeKZ, and conversely if they dislike someone that someone comes under suspicion of being LeKZ?

However, I note caveat for future reference, in the event my defence of Quincy should possibly place me on some powerfull person caca-list.

There is another problem, why I would not have placed that sentence there, if I was wanting this to look fair and just. To my jaded eyes (or is it unbias eyes?) the presence of that sentence makes this whole event appear like personal vendetta, not against Quincy, but against the person LeKZ.

'Unfortunately Quincy has already been involved in a flame war with one Researcher,'

I thank the Editors for allowing us to judge this 'flame war' for our own eyes. I agree with the person saying one angry statement in a nasty thread follow by apology which also appear in Quincy's journale is not constituting a 'flame war'. Subjective criteria, subjectively applied, in a case of a priori judgment might call it 'flame war'. Just to look at, forgetting the man is accused of being the (I must find out what she did to be so notorios) eternally banished LeKZ, the 'war' seems like an out burst to me. That would make what the Editors posted again seem prejudicial, to me.

'and has been giving medical advice to another Researcher.'

I saw no improper or unethical actions but lots of reminders to talk with his docteurs and also speaking from personal experience. The man is experienced as both patient and has medical profession for 22 years! I am not sure if he returns, that he is not in position to counter-argue that this is illegal statement about his medical professional ethics. Activiste, I am. Lawyer I am not at all. I have no training so I don't know. Still, that seems to me simply not the case, or as plain speaking Americans might say: a lie. Interesting, no?

'We have unhidden the relevant Posting from the flame war so it can be read by those who want to contribute here, and will hide it again when this process is complete'.

That was very good of the Editors to show us this person who was angry. I am glad they did so. I agree with Quincy about some OTHER things in that discussion being equally unpleasant, if shorter, so now I have no idea what is allowed. Fortunately, I am always such an there is never any question of a probleme from me.

'Quincy has been contacted and has denied that (s)he is LeKZ, but then again, she denied that it was her when she opened the now-closed Silent Lucidity account.'

I am not happy about that one at all. Let us read again carefully. I don't write English good, but I can parse, and so can you.

'Quincy has been contacted.' The person here called 'Quincy', that The Editors accuse of being LeKZ, they have informed. 'and has denied (s)he is LeKZ'. The Editors use the '(s)' because they claim that he is not just allegedly, but truely LeKZ, and want you and me to believe it too. I don't know in English does 'to deny' carry implication that it is a lie? Someone help me here with this, please. 'but then again,' I observe they wrote this is all once sentence, and make 'Quincy and LeKZ' appear as if in one thought, 'she denied', oho!, now is not parenthetical anymore '(s)' 'that it was her when she opened...' now is gone on to talk about transgression of LeKZ, and not of Quincy at all.

This single sentence move from the subject being Quincy to the actual subject being LeKZ (changing gender mid-way, you could not do so in French) and pouf! Now it is the same person. How subtle.

Bravissimes! The Editors are very clever with words. Indeed, I would say brilliant. Such talent could paint the sky red and make people believe almost any thing. Is a shame any persons would use such talent for bringing harm to others.

'For these reasons we propose that the account be closed.'

Bien. For these reasons, I shall hope to keep mine open, though I will not use it again, possibly ever, if h2g2 engage in kangaroo court here that make amateurs of Baby Doc Duvalier and Idi-Amin Dada.

M***e encore!

Satyagraha force me to watch how these events unfold. Satyagraha may force me to speak again against this obvious abuse of the power. The Editors have presented pure hear say, prejudice, and are prosecuting; and then same Editors will decide. Bien. I hope all consciences here are as clear as the intention of those words to manipulate. I apologise for the offence of not being fooled. No I cannot write English well because I haven't had to do so much in life. I have studied philosophy and logique and I am not a fool. h2g2 would not attract fools.

In defence of the condemned Quincy who is my peer and yours, (and not the peer of the Editors, so I am not addressing them), I say do not be fooled, because they are so sure of a belief if they have not proof positif then they are tricking the community? That is time to make out cry, not go along with them. What if they are wrong?

What if they are wrong? They have gone to some effort to make something appear true, on closer investigation, the effort seems very un-natural, to me.

I don't know Quincy, and have never heard of LeKZ. I do not care. We are the proletariat together. But if there is policy for fairness, then let it be FAIR, not done through magician's legerdemain.

A bientôt, et merci pour les poissons, mais je ne mange pas la morte.

So long and thanks for all the fish, but I do not eat death.

Satyagraha

[... there seems to be more within than without ...]

Satyagraha: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F82421?thread=160942&skip=8 And... "What if they have no proof? If they do, would they withold it for some reason?" Yes. If the proof was, for some reason, covered by the Editors' obligation to confidentiality. See link above. Very, very obvious possibility, I'm surprised you didn't think of it. "That is not evidence to my eyes. Can this be proven? " What would constitute proof, for you? "If a number (what number? 3, 79, 400? that could make the difference too, eh?) of people claim to my appartement management that I am bringing home the teenagers and feeding them drogues, I need to have this proven against me. I cannot be evicted on hear say." If a number (what number? 9? 100? 923? why would the *number* even matter?) of people claimed that, that would be a matter of law. This is a matter of rules on a free-to-use website. It's not really the same thing, is it? And I ask again, what proof would satisfy YOU? "Evidently the SINGLE exception to this is the person LeKZ, and conversely if they dislike someone that someone comes under suspicion of being LeKZ?" I disagree. If LeKZ came back and managed not to offend anyone, I doubt there'd be a problem. On the other hand, I've had an Official Warning, and Lucinda, Col. Sellers and Not Banned Yet were all suspended for a week. At NO STAGE was it suggested that either myself or any of those people were LeKZ, for the very simple reason that that suggestion would be very obviously stupid. For various reasons which I regret to admit I can see, the suggestion that Quincy is LeKZ is not so easily dismissed. You may not be able to see that, but you've not been here long, so your ignorance is understandable. I agree the "flame war" is hardly that - but by providing a link, the Editors allow everyone to see that. You said "The man is experienced as both patient and has medical profession for 22 years! " How on EARTH do you know that? Do you blindly believe every single thing people here choose to reveal about themselves? For your information, *quite a lot of people lie*. I'm not suggesting Quincy was doing. I'm just pointing out that everything YOU know about him is based on what he's written here. Everything anyone knew about someone called "Silent Lucidity" was written here in November. He was a management consultant. At least, you'd have thought he was. In fact "he" was a woman. LeKZ. "He" was lying. It's unfortunate that Quincy is being tarred with that brush. It's unfortunate that because LeKZ lied then, Quincy is suffering now. But that is emphatically NOT the fault of the Editors, in my opinion. "Is a shame any persons would use such talent for bringing harm to others." The Editors are hard-pressed people doing a difficult job for not much pay. What "harm" exactly is being done by suspending Quincy? If he's not LeKZ, and I hope he's not, then he's been suspended for flaming. Harsh, I agree, but he'll be back. I can't imagine it's too much of an inconvenience in the life of a person like him to be denied the use of this site for a week. "h2g2 engage in kangaroo court here that make amateurs of Baby Doc Duvalier and Idi-Amin Dada." Excellent comedic use of wild overstatement! "In defence of the condemned Quincy who is my peer and yours, (and not the peer of the Editors, so I am not addressing them)" You have a touching, almost naive faith in Quincy's veracity (how old are you?), and at the same time an unattractively ungrateful presumption about the people who make it possible for you to post here in the first place, especially for someone so new here. You're not a very forgiving person, are you? "I don't know Quincy, and have never heard of LeKZ." Perhaps you should do some background research before you weigh in with further speculation. There are reasons for what is happening which, if you can't be bothered to find out about them, will just pass you by. Do a search on "Silent Lucidity" for a start. You won't get the full story, because a significant part of tha

During the Silent Lucidity ban procedure, Jim was forthcoming with information that supported the editors claim that that SL was LeKZ.

There has been no such statement from the editors this time.

I do not expect them to reveal the actual location that their traces on the postings from Quincy came up with. And I would not be surprised if they got a different address from last time since I know that LeKZ was, at least, in the process of changing over to a new service. But, I would like to hear from the editors that they have traced Quincy to within the same ten mile radius as LeKZ. If they are truly that close together then I might begin to understand the editors' assertion that Quincy is LeKZ.

I have read Quincy's postings at several locations on h2g2 and there is nothing about Quincy's style or vocabulary that is the least reminiscent of LeKZ. There is much about Quincy's manner of writing that would seem to support his claim to be a medical examiner.

None of this is conclusive, of course. As far as I can tell, all it takes is for someone to have an opinion and to profess some expertise in an area related to medicine or psychology and to have upset somebody or not to have been fluffy enough before that person is dubbed an incarnation of LeKZ.

I suppose that this present 'obvious' LeKZishness simply has to do with the however many complaints from however many researchers who have never themselves ever flamed someone one time and never spoke about some topic that might be construed as giving medical advice even though a disclaimer was attached saying that this is not medical advice merely information, see your own doctor.

None of this matters though because Quincy would not have merited a ban based on the instances cited. Quincy might have merited a one week suspension though I have given and received much worse offense myself without either party even getting a repremand, to my knowledge.

No, the problem is that Quincy *is* LeKZ and therefore is not *being* banned but is *already* banned.

There is no chance for any of us to hear evidence because there is no need for any of us to hear evidence. The editors have spoken.

All we can do, by virtue of the Modest Proposal, is beg for mercy.

What's the point in begging when what I would have to say is 'Please don't ban LeKZ'? I know that the editors have already banned LeKZ.

It doesn't seem to matter that Quincy *may* not be LeKZ and, as far as I can tell, he isn't. It doesn't matter.

I sure hope someone else can come up with something that does matter.

Barton

Here and now, for the record, I state flatly that Quincy is not LeKZ. Quincy is not an alter of LeKZ's. Quincy is not an inhabitant of LeKZ's body. Quincy has never used any of the computers in the apartment that LeKZ and I share.

Period.

I have never met Quincy. I don't even know if Quincy is in the metro Denver area.

Quincy is not LeKZ. I am not LeKZ. For the record, a lot of people are not LeKZ.

I've never met Quincy. I'd like to.

Not Banned Yet, just disgusted.

I feel that Quincy is not LeKZ (see my first posting).

This posting is reply to Hoovooloo, who evidently believes I too am LeKZ . Perhaps everyone is LeKZ. Not all of them know it. I don't. Satyagraha: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F82421?thread=160942&skip=8 I read. I will reply in time. Is not terribly urgent. I don't argue for no reason, and mere insults to my intelligence and so on are... mere insults, n'est-ce pas? I like the Internet -- no weapons but words, which do harm only to those who care. I do not. Perhaps, as it seems, you are now suspecting me of being also LeKZ, so I return the favour. You could easily be she, as you are articulate, and very capable in use of language. I know little of her, and less of you, but I reading what you say, given what you seem to believe (that I am LeKZ), I am learning more of you than from any actual claims you make. 'Yes. If the proof was, for some reason, covered by the Editors' obligation to confidentiality. See link above. Very, very obvious possibility, I'm surprised you didn't think of it.' I did not. I am an hippie, a professeur, and a satyagraga, which none use that paranoiac modele of thinking. So I am mistaken of this poing, I certainly concede. I hope that is enough. To humans, I do not . 'What would constitute proof, for you?' There is technical ways of proving things, non? I look at 'Silent Lucidity' and this was establish at once as being a user of LeKZ's computer. Well that is 'proof'. This time if they had, that is no confidence. It was disclose last time. Why not say? 'If a number (what number? 9? 100? 923? why would the *number* even matter?) of people claimed that, that would be a matter of law. This is a matter of rules on a free-to-use website. It's not really the same thing, is it? And I ask again, what proof would satisfy YOU?' I have tell you. Is this an effort to seek justice for the accused Quincy, or to continue to associate his name with that of someone else absent facts, hein? 'I disagree. If LeKZ came back and managed not to offend anyone, I doubt there'd be a problem.' Ah bien? I do not know. What do you think she must do to not offend anyone? Somehow I get the impression she is the persona non grata of this cute little community. 'On the other hand, I've had an Official Warning, and Lucinda, Col. Sellers and Not Banned Yet were all suspended for a week. At NO STAGE was it suggested that either myself or any of those people were LeKZ, for the very simple reason that that suggestion would be very obviously stupid.' Things that are obvious to you may not be obvious to me, and visa-versa. You are (or are pretending to be) a scientist. I am (or am pretending to be) a satyagraha. We don't, if neither of us lies, see things the same. 'For various reasons which I regret to admit I can see, the suggestion that Quincy is LeKZ is not so easily dismissed. You may not be able to see that, but you've not been here long, so your ignorance is understandable.' Merci, m'sieur. I am grateful they are not prosecuting ignorance yet, and if I am remembering that it was your page... checked, it was 'ignorance, apathy, etcetera', perhaps your life is safe too because of this. 'I agree the "flame war" is hardly that - but by providing a link, the Editors allow everyone to see that.' Did I not thank them? 'How on EARTH do you know that? Do you blindly believe every single thing people here choose to reveal about themselves?' No, of course not. Do you automatically assume that everyone must lie to present the best face? Why say he lost his stability and has to take leave from job, if it is not true? This is not flattering to the man, and make him look weak. Why tell that his ex wife is more successfull? Why admit he is psychiatrique patient, when he say he is doctor? Do most doctors you know admit to any fault at all? Not the one's I have met. 'For your information, *quite a lot of people lie*.' Merci, M. l'Instituteur. I am suitiably chastise by the all-knowing. Pleas

Well, I've read the journal, the introduction, and the 'flame war' posting. They just don't sound like the same person.

Yes, both are Jewish, with a medical background, and yes, they're American - how many people in America can say the same? The style of writing and the personality are not consistent with the LeKZ that I'm familiar with.

Why not answer this question for good and run an IP trace?

Congratulations, Hoovooloo

You've managed to injure LeKZ yet again.

Well done!

Please allow me to wish you a long life, with not one bit more pain than you've caused.

I was just getting to know Quincy, and will feel really cheated if he is kicked off h2g2. He seemed like quite a nice person, and surely a written warning would suffice in this case! JEllenJ42

Satyagraha,

Congratulations for giving Hoovooloo as good as he gave you.

In case you were not aware, Hoovooloo was the person who came up with this particular procedure we are participating in which was accepted by the editors presumably because Hoovooloo's logic was that the editors had nothing to loose by this process and it would give at least the pretense that the editors were listening to the researchers' opinions and might result in a reversal of their decisions.

One of the key ideas behind the plan, to my way of thinking and I seem to recall Hoovooloo having said as much was that the for banning and against banning threads should not be places of argumentation and debate but simply a chance for each side to state their case for the editor's consideration at the end of the week's time.

It's so good to see that he has chosen to stand by those principles (note ironic usage here) and is helping to make his own creation do the tiny bit the editors have allowed us in determining the fate of the community which we make up.

In fairness, I should tell you that Hoovooloo has always been on record as being essentially in support of the editors' positions but on occasion has shown himself capable of independent thinking in this arena.

Unfortunately, he has not shown much of that quality of thought since a bit before Silent Lucidity was banned. Also, I should say that he and I have been at each other's throats off and on, pretty much since that same time. In fact, some of his attacks on me and mine on him should be considered as primary evidence that Quincy had done nothing more than offer a mild rebuke in the way of flame wars.

Even those were mild in comparison to some that can be found about the site, notably the infamous Intelligence thread in which I and LeKZ tried to give tit for tat. As well as attacks by Playboy Reporter and his alternate identity Clay_Toy. More recently there were the attacks on Josh the Genius over his article speaking against the theory of evolution.

In short, flaming is an unfortunate tradition here whenever opinions meet opposing opinions on matters that can't be mediated with emoticons.

This not to suggest that h2g2 is not largely happy, intelligent place. I only raise the issues here by way of pointing out that whatever issues have been cited by the editors that can be plainly laid against Quincy have ample precedent and greater scope of acceptance than Quincy could be considered to have transgressed.

Which of course leaves the most significant problem from my viewpoint. That Quincy has been tarred with the LeKZ brush and must therefore be expelled. Hoovooloo apparently has doubts about Quincy but suspects that you are a limb of that (sarcasm alert) terrifying LeKZ creature.

I have no idea where you or Quincy are, but if either of you wish to have any hope of continuing on h2g2, stay away from the Denver, Colorado, USA area and under no circumstance should you playfully name your Internet connection, 'LeKZ.'

You have announce that you practice satyagraha, but you have not announced, at least I have not seen, whether it is your intention to declare h2g2 as a target for the righting of injustice. I personally feel that to ban Quincy would be injustice. I also spoke up for Silent Lucidity. I continue to speak up for LeKZ.

Each one is a different cause. Each one is a different case. Each one represents injustice.

I would look forward to hearing your thoughts on how Gandhi's principles could be applied to such a cause on h2g2. Please do *not* expound on such matters here. Feel free to start a thread at my page, your own, or perhaps in one of the more public fora. It might even involve some of the Tits (thank you Peta) of the Small But Vocal Minority, one never knows, does one?

Barton

Well, I know LeKZ as well as I know *anyone* from the net. I've read a lot of stuff that LeKZ (various members thereof) have written.

I've just read through a lot of the Quincy stuff, and Quincy doesn't sound like LeKZ to me. Silent Lucidity *did* sound like LeKZ to me, enough that I didn't post to the Don't Ban Silent Lucidity thread.

I don't believe that Quincy is LeKZ, and I therefore don't believe that Quincy should be Banned For Life, unless he goes and does something meriting a Lifetime Ban. If Quincy needs an Official Warning for his behaviour, then so be it.

With Silent Lucidity, there was the IP trace. Here it's apparently just (perceived) resemblance? Why no IP trace? It's not hard to establish where someone is. Just IP trace both of them and see if they're in the same place. I'll bet LeKZ would be willing to cooperate with that.

I don't get the impression that Satyagraha is LeKZ, either. If Quincy and Satyagraha are LeKZ, then maybe I'm LeKZ, too!

GTBacchus, SBVM/Tit

Somebody give me a shout when the "Don't Ban Satyagraha" thread starts. I don't want to post to it, just curious to read what everyone else will say.

The last person (before Satyagraha) I saw on h2g2 who felt capable of defending people this soon after joining was a login by the name of "Claytoy," who asked why everyone was so harsh to Playboy Reporter. (Hint: think of a word that rhymes with "Claytoy.")

Barton,

"...and it would give at least the pretense that the editors were listening to the researchers' opinions and might result in a reversal of their decisions."

See also "A Modest Proposal," the Arbiter Scheme, and Lucinda's "Cornflakes and Birdsong" for proof that the Editors listen to suggestions even from people they have suspended, and implement some of them.

,

The following is all speculation and circumstantial evidence, guided entirely by hearsay and my impressions from reading a few thousand words by Quincy.

Don't Ban Quincy yet. For one thing, he's more convincing than Satyagraha. I'm convinced that she is a little overboard with zee Pepe le Pew accent, non? Only a few of zee French words peppered throughout longue postings, enough to give you zee flavour of zis character, but not enough to even get any tricky French phrases moderated. Quel incroyable! (That means, "How incredible!" in French, just like it sounds. Please don't moderate this post just because of that!)

If eds have positive evidence from an ISP trace, then they should say so and treat Quincy the same as Silent Lucidity. If not, and if those kinds of flames are enough to get a person banned, then just give Quincy another week or two active (after this suspension) and he will not be able to restrain the urge to flame again. Voila. No need to ban based on association with LeKZ, but based on the unique merits of how often Quincy breaks the rules on his own. (This strategy also has the advantage of allowing Quincy to remain if he really refrains from flaming. Even if he really was LeKZ, who would care if he could refrain from flaming, right?)

Would the community be exposed to real danger if Quincy was brought back for a few days or a week, enough time to see if he would flame again? (Then again, I don't think the community or anyone individual really suffers from being flamed, so what the hell do I know?)

Oh well. I'm not going to get too worked up about Quincy as cause celebre. But please, somebody let me know when the "Ban Satyagraha" thread starts, okay? S'il vous plait, ma cherie?