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

Denver is a pretty large state. This does not rule out the possibility that I offered that it is somebody wanting to harm LeKZ.

Denver is NOT a pretty large state.

COLORADO is a pretty large state.

Denver is ONE city, in ONE state, in ONE country, out of all the places the apparently multilingual "Satyagraha" *could* have come from. Denver's still a large place (estimated population according to the book I'm looking at is a little over half a million - a little bigger than Bradford, or about half the size of Durban, for comparison), but as a proportion even of just the rest of the USA, it's *tiny*.

So, out of the entire population of the USA, Satyagraha just happens to log on from the same city as LeKZ. Pure chance that they are part of the same 0.2% of the US population. Possible, certainly. People bet on worse odds than 500-1 every time they buy a lottery ticket.

Pure chance that, in addition to being part of the same 0.2% of the US population, they also happen to have posted things which made people think they're LeKZ? We're into lottery ticket probabilities here, I'm thinking.

As for swearing oaths... we did all this in November. LeKZ was swearing at topica (not oaths, just swearing) that "Silent Lucidity" was not her. She lambasted people for suggesting otherwise. An IP trace was mentioned here. She publicly stated that it "wasn't worth s**t". This merely showed her ignorance. She carried on deceiving her closest friends about the Silent Lucidity account right up to the point where she was proven to be lying. I don't know whether the reasons for those lies were ever explained to her friends' satisfaction, and I don't care. If those people can now, after that, bring themselves to believe her in the teeth of the evidence, they are as entitled to their opinion as I am to mine.

I can't, however, believe anyone holds so much of a grudge against her that they'd be prepared to move to Denver specifically to log on to h2g2, pretend to be her, and get banned, purely to affect her *reputation*. And if they live in Denver already, if someone hated her that much, and was in town anyway, aren't there more direct methods of bothering someone? I mean, just as an example, if you wanted to harrass someone you could try waking them up in the middle of the night with after-midnight phonecalls. Just a thought, can't imagine where I might have got that idea.

But: this thread is not about Satyagraha - there's a thread elsewhere for that. It's about Quincy. There is no news regarding a trace on his account. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I hope he is what he says he is. If he is, he should be able to prove it easily, in which case this should all be over soon.

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, personally. I'll be very happy if he can put my mind at rest by doing whatever very, very simple thing he needs to do to prove he is who he says. Looking forward to it.

H.

I've looked at the 'flame war', and it certainly doesn't seem to me as though all the unpleasantness was Quincy's fault - but he appears to be the only one being punished. Giving detailed, specific medical advice on h2g2 isn't a good idea, but what was posted was heavily qualified with advice to see a doctor.

And, in the absence of a trace on the Quincy account, I don't see any conclusive evidence that Quincy is LeKZ. Therefore, I too feel that for now, Quincy should be given the benefit of the doubt.

It didn't occur to me that he was LeKZ, although it did with the SL account (not to the point where I was sure but there was a 'hang on....' factor). Not having had much interaction with Quincy means I can't really say much more.

But.... is bringing the Silent Lucidity thing into this too deeply really a constructive way to behave? Past 'convictions' are, of course, relavent, but at the end of the day they don't affect whether Quincy is LeKZ. [It would seem to be persistance to the point of stupidity to come back yet again] He either is, or isn't.

Patterns of behavior are all very well, but saying something as basic as 'he's denying it. But then, so did Silent Lucity' seems to be a stupid point. If he isn't then he'd deny it. If he is then he'd deny it unless he wanted to be caught. The page should, surely, be as neutral as possible?

I've spent too little time lurking to have an opinion on whether he is/isn't. But I've come down on the side of 'don't ban' because he's innocent until proven guilty.

Oh, and the doctor point... no one thinks you're stupid Willem. But any member of the public can read, whether or not it was addressed to you. It needs to be taken into consideration that *some* people might be influenced by medical advice in general.

If this post makes no sense I apologise. I've edited a lot of it out, and so I don't know if what I've left is at all coherant.
Anyway, I like to bring a little surrealism into people's lives

Dastardly

Wazungumza wrote (posting 40) :-

>"The editors did once say it wouldn't matter to them if a banned researcher returned in such a way that no problems were caused - or at least I read their words to mean that."

Quite so. On the page that this thread hangs off, the following lines can be read :-

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

The text then goes on to list a couple of misdemeanours putatively committed by Quincy, since registering with h2g2. These misdemeanours, in effect, are given as the reason for suspending Quincy's account. People here seem to have established pretty conclusively that these incidents were rather minor, and the editors seem to have agreed that they do not consider the offences to be, in themselves, worthy of a ban.

Then, in posting 35, the editors observe that actually "this is not about whether Quincy's actions on site deserve warnings or suspension, it is about whether Quincy is actually a banned Researcher."

This surely contradicts the above-cited statement "we don't really care unless that Researcher starts causing problems."

I also agree with others here, on the question of proving identities being virtually impossible. Surely the burden of proof should lie with the accuser, rather than the accused. That's my understanding of the expression "Innocent before proven guilty."

i'm new. so before you decide i'm also lekz i'll just tell you quincy emailed me because i said something to him about what he'd said to another person. i don't like anything to do with fights and this is horrible.

but i am an academic brat and an academic and i see satyagraha's points about the inflammatory rhetoric used by the editors, and really don't see that there was any need for that on their part. they don't have proof, so they're using rhetoric is what it looks like to me also.

from what i've read of quincy's he sounds like he is what he says he is. i am what i say i am which is basically a timid person who's no good at sticking up for herself. but i'll stick up for other people, and i don't like people to try to trick me with rhetorical devices that would work, on many people, but not on the ones i've talked to here.

some people seem to think the internet is crawling with liars who are out to trick them. well maybe it is, and i've seen some really hateful flamey sites. i was mad too about what looneytunes said. i thought it was a horrible thing to say. i just didn't tell him that because i'd already said i unsubscribed, i'm too much of a , and instead i stayed up all night making the gardens.

i don't believe quincy is lekz and if i was him i'd never give anybody any "proof" because in this country you're innocent until the prosecution proves you're guilty, not the reverse! i think that's true in the uk too isn't it?



i think i was too assertive better press send while i can.

wendy

wall flower girl

don't ban quincy
don't engage in rumor wars
don't be mad at me, please

Just a quickie, Lear:

"I also agree with others here, on the question of proving identities being virtually impossible. Surely the burden of proof should lie with the accuser, rather than the accused."

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies in the real world, where you pay taxes to see it enforced, possibly because in the real world, punishments include things like fines and imprisonment. The only "punishment" being proposed here is that a person could be required to stop using this website, a website you pay nothing to use. It's hardly the same thing. People persist in treating this like a trial. IT'S NOT.

Proving identities need not prove "virtually impossible". If Quincy is what he says he is, it should actually be quite easy for him to prove it, thankfully.

Unfortunately, unless joining this website is made a lot more difficult and awkward, the Editors cannot guarantee unsociable individuals will not persist in opening accounts here despite bans. If a bona fide user is mistaken for such a person, then it is unfortunately necessary for them to prove that they are NOT that banned person. Since this is just a website, and it's free to use, and the staff do not have infinite resources to go round checking people's veracity, the burden of proof *must* rest with the accused - unless you personally fancy financing the resources necessary to put the burden of proof where you'd like to see it.

It is often the case that the bad behaviour of a small minority pollutes the experience of the rule-abiding majority - hence anti-virus software which slows down my computer, locks which slow me down getting into my car when it's raining, and security precautions which mean since September 11th I have to be at the airport two hours earlier than I did before. This is unfortunate.

I don't want Quincy banned, unless he fails to prove he isn't LeKZ. As I've said, if he isn't, I would not be in the least surprised if he quit the site in disgust anyway - which would be our loss.

H.

Hoovooloo,

I still don't really see any reason why it shouldn't be up to an accuser to provide proof before they pass judgement on someone. Yes, I know this is a relatively trivial situation, and it doesn't compare with going to prison etc... but I don't think that's sufficient justification for throwing a good principle to the wind. The fact that the editors have rushed to provide such evidence where they actually have it - in the case of Satyagraha, and also the earlier case of Silent Lucidity - seems to indicate that they have an understanding of this principle too.

Lear

My thoughts on this are as follows, and I'll copy them and post them on the Satyagraha page:

As there is no real conclusive way for you, meaning the editors, to prove the Quincy and Satyagraha are LeKZ I have issue with banning them.

I realize this is your site and we are all voluntarily under the boot. I cannot but speak out on this particularly when I'm invited to do so.

Rather than repeat what has already been said, I offer why not do what you say you would do?

If someone is banned for life(which seems to me to be just shy of Capitiol Punishment in v.r.) and they choose to come back as a different person....so what?

How about treating each individual username as individuals?

You've said you didn't ban him/her/whatever for a week because of their transgressions on the site, so then what is this about? Is it because you "think" they might be LeKZ? Is it because there are people on this site that are so ate up about what happened in the past that they just simply can't let go of it, and therefore result in paranoia about anyone who reminds them of LeKZ? Christ I could be LeKZ for that matter. I've argued with Loony on many different occasions. And I didn't apologize for it either!

My point then, simply is this. If you cannot prove that either of these people is LeKZ then drop the charge. Apologize and save a little face(or even say that you banned them because they were flaming, I don't care).

And then....watch these individuals closely. Like it or not they've marked themselves in your eyes, and big deal if they have. If you're going to ban them, ban them on something substantial. Something that is against the house rules in some gross fashion.

And one last point...I don't really know what got LeKZ banned in the first place...I really don't care. I don't even care if she/he/whatever lied about the Silent Lucidity account. What I care about, and so should you, is wether or not someone goes against the rules you've posted on the House Rules. It's my opinion that whatever got LeKZ banned in the first place will probably get them banned again(which is a whole different issue again, because like I said, I don't know what got them banned in the first place so I don't even know if I agree with the initial banning). So if you watch and have a little patience you'll be able to find out for sure if these people really are who they say they are.

This lifetime banning thing is kind of silly in the sense that you cannot prove if the person ever comes back as a different user. Sure you kill the name they are known by and they have to go through the whole re-shaping their role in the community phase again, but aside from being an inconvience.... I don't find the idea of the .2% or whatever the figure was of probability holds much water. Just the word probability sounds stupid (probable-but not likely-ity). Humanity's evolution isn't probable but somehow here we are typing over ridiculousness. Denver is a very large city. I bet there are lot of internet capable computers in the city. In fact, I bet (because its PROBABLE-I can use the word too) that some of them even look at H2G2. I bet they could even be neighbors and not know it.

But then I'm just betting and that's the whole problem.

Understand, I'm not saying Quincy and Satyagraha aren't LeKZ, although I'll say here that I seriously doubt the allegation. I've got their own denial plus what I've read of their writing and what I've read of Quincy and Satyagraha. My opinion is that neither are anything but who they say they are. But, I'm saying it just shouldn't matter because there is no real way to prove it and unless they go against some major infraction(other than being here in the first place) then let it go already.

Again, you can toss out whomever you want and there is nothing anyone can do about it. I'll still post here no matter what you do to these two people because I think the debates I find myself in, matter. I don't much care for the infighting that is going on here, as they rarely touch my little circle of debate. Yet, after what happened to the Colonel, who I valued as a friend because of his participation in various religious debates,(who I didn't always agree with mind you, but I do respect my debate partners-even Looney although I wouldn't admit it unless it was drug out of me...which it is in some sense) I'm a little bummed out because I think Quincy could have wound up in one of the debates I frequent, and I would have been interested to see what he had to say. In a related point, I wouldn't care if this person was Satan incarnate on earth. I enjoy the opportunity to talk/debate with people I normally wouldn't ever have the chance too. And that, paired with your invitation to say what I think, has compelled me-who normally lets the silly fight their own wars all by themselves-post.

Enjoy and let the flame burn on!!!!

Galaxy Babe,

I haven't read all of the backlog from the last 24 hours, but feel the need to respond to what you wrote regarding my having "let you all down."

Once again, Quincy is NOT LeKZ, by any definition. I believe him to be exactly as he represented himself. Satyagraha is equally NOT LeKZ. I don't know who or what he is.

Regarding my statement that Hoovooloo has injured LeKZ again; Hoovooloo's comments were written based on HIS belief that Satyagraha is LeKZ and were, therefore, meant for LeKZ. It is his treatment of a person HE BELIEVES TO BE LeKZ that is the injury of which I spoke.

NBY

Perium, that's the most sensible thing I've read all day. Why not? If a researcher breaks the rules in a way that merits a lifetime ban, then ban them. The banning should not be on the basis of whether they've received a lifetime ban in the past. Having to track down every name because there's a chance that it might be a previously-banned researcher - is this an activity you really want to spend time on?

I will add my agreement that it makes good sense to treat the account as the person and ban the account. I suggest that someone starts a thread for debating this idea at the Soap Box. (I'll be leaving at the end of six days, so it would be wrong for me to start the thread.) However, that is not for here.

I have had emails from Quincy, giving me personal details, that fully satisfy me that he is not LeKZ. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind. He has my full support.

Barton

I don't know LeKZ at all, I have only read what she has written on h2g2´. Similarly, I don't know Quincy at all, but have read some of his postings. I don't see any similarities - except that they bost like log posts. I don't see any reason to think Quincy is LeKZ

Don't ban Quincy unless you're absolutely sure, please.

Well well. Should of course be "they both like long posts".

If you ban Quincy, you might as well ban everyone who posted to the "Reasons to be alive" thread. Because they are all doing the same thing, trying to give support and advice to a researcher who needs it. All we are trying to do is share personal experience.

Top marks for comedy value go to "Not Banned Yet" for another unconvincing sideshow attempt at mind-reading. Wrong again, genius.

"Regarding my statement that Hoovooloo has injured LeKZ again; Hoovooloo's comments were written based on HIS belief that Satyagraha is LeKZ and were, therefore, meant for LeKZ. It is his treatment of a person HE BELIEVES TO BE LeKZ that is the injury of which I spoke."

My comments were actually written based on my belief that "Satyagraha" was a boorish moron with a pathetic fake "accent" who hadn't done their research. Don't try and read my mind, like a lot of other people you are demonstrably USELESS at it.

As for injury - I was talking neither to nor about the person you live with. My comments were meant for "Satyagraha" alone, NOT that bloody woman. If she so lacks self-control that she can't stop herself reading every single word I write here, and is so incredibly self-obsessed that she thinks every word of it is a message to her - THAT'S NOT MY PROBLEM. I'm not interested. Is this clear enough?

Please stop implying I'm doing something I'm not, based on your own prejudice, or worse, hers.

H.

So you're saying that Quincy was able to prove to you that he worked in the cororner's office of New York as an MD named Murray S?

I don't suppose you'd care to share?
If you've got evidence that proves Les Editors wrong, would Quincy allow you to share it?

I reckon that'd clear up the whole thing.

Sorry, that was addressed to Barton.

And Quincy related as much in this posting: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F19585?thread=148770&post=1637136 So the personal details are on-site already.