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

Quincy's anger in the condoloence thread was only sparked off at the percieved insensitivity of others in the thread, and he apologized for the harshness of his words in his next posting. The words that struck me as the harshest at first turned out to be quotes from other people's postings. As for the so-called medical advice, he was merely pointing out some things Willem should keep in mind, and these things were not based on his medical qualifications but on his personal experience with similar conditions. He did not deal out any prescriptive advice. As a fellow newbie I am concerned about the tenuous footing on which we find ourselves. Surely we can express a certain degree of anger or we wouldn't have the smiley.

One of the saddest things about LeKZ's legacy is that new people to the site get swept up in the witch-hunts, find it is not fun, and leave. And older researchers also find it isnt fun anymore and leave too. This has nothing to do with whether or not LeKZ is actually here or not. Her remains to haunt us all.

Ben

I'll post this twice- to 'don't ban Quincy' and Hoovooloo's page, as he seemed to request

Hoovooloo said:
#Dastardly wrote: "I would hope that my own friends would come to my defence if I were accused as LeKZ is "
Sorry, Dastardly, I'm not sure I caught that. Did you *really* just say...
" if I were accused as LeKZ is"
I was personally under the impression that the person being accused *here* is Quincy, and kind of the whole *point* of this whole thing is that he's NOT LeKZ. If you think he IS LeKZ, Dastardly, I think you're posting in the wrong thread...#

I'll state the bleeding obvious:

*If Quincy is accused of being LeKZ, then, conversely, LeKZ is accused of being Quincy*

Which is suggesting that she has broken the conditions of her ban to sneak back into h2g2. Allegations which she cannot defend herself against because Quincy is the only party the editors will correspond with, or so they say on the page. (if she has been in correspondance with them then I don't know know about it). Therefore some of the people she associates with have taken an interest in these proceedings, since she has been accused.

I agree with Ben in every way. Sad, very sad. And each of us is the produce of our experiences, and react in our own ways.

I'm sorry I was rude last night [I don't think it's an excuse, but it was because I was up all night with flu!] I'm going to apologise to wfg, as well.

x x Fenny (UT)

A couple of unrelated points.

Firstly it occured to me today that the Scots have a legal verdict of 'not proven'. It may be a tautology to say that if it cannot be proven that Quincy is not LeKZ then it is 'not proven'. But the point is worth making.

If it cannot be proven that Quincy is not LeKZ then to ban him because he is her would be an injustice.

If it *can* be proven, then LeKZ's original ban is still in force.

I say again - if it cannot be proven that Quincy is not LeKZ - then to ban him at this stage would be wrong.

My second point is one that Willem made early on. A long time ago in fact. This site no longer feels a safe place to be.

Ben

Personally, I wouldn't agree with the comment about the site feeling safe, though clearly everyone's own feelings may be different.

There are certainly topics that arouse serious emotions, which seem at times to spill into postings which are maybe a little too personal, but what happens in this particular corner isn't representative of the site as a whole.

I qoute from the Transgressions Procedure for Lifetime Bans

"Email correspondence on this subject will not be entered into with anyone except Researcher X"

and from the posting by the editors above (84)

" In this case we've received emails from a significant number of Researchers who have declined to post to the suspension-related Conversations on site; this is mainly because these people don't want to get dragged into on-site politics. These emails are from both sides of the argument, by the way. However, it dawned on us that only those who *know* our email address can actually send us emails, so if you have an opinion that you would rather *not* post on site, you can email us at [email protected] and we'll consider your comments when we come to make a decision"

So the question is which is it? Email from other researchers will not be admissable or will it? Or only from other researchers who do not want to get dragged into on-site politics but DO want to influence this decision? And what about the editors keeping out of the discussion - there are at least 5 postings from them in this thread?

What exactly is the point of having a procedure if you are not going to stick to it?

There is a serious difference between *correspondence* and *submissions*.

Correspondence requires at least a reply, sumbissions of opinion don't.

All the policy states is that TPTB aren't going to get into a whole series of private discussions or arguments with all and sundry, for which I wouldn't blame them in the slightest.

Re-reading this thread, I think that 'legacy' is the wrong word.

It describes something which happens only after a person has gone, but it also implies volition by that person.

Perhaps a better-word might be side-effect, or possibly after-shock...? Either way it lingers on.

I am going to unsubscribe from this thread, since I have NO chance of catching up on the back-log of the whole affair. I'll only come back if someone draws my attention to something specific to do with the issue.

Ben

I'm posting this in the four Ban/Don't Ban threads. I have copied and pasted all of the email correspondence from both of the accused that was forwarded to the TrusT list. Go to my page and follow the link in the bold-type paragraph at the top of the page under the words "Don't Panic". Don't Panic. Make your own judgements, and do about them what you will.

If the link gets moderated away... Christ, I tried. I don't think there's any reason it should, but I don't think lots of things that end up happening.

GTB

Withdrawing previous support for Quincy and throwing my weight (such as it is, I'm only a snotty smart mouthed kid after all) behind those saying "Ban Him".

H.
Very rude young man. Ha! I wish.

um, are you serious? cause if you are you're in the wrong thread. and if you're kidding i'd sure appreciate it if you said so, cause this isn't really that much of a joking matter.

you have been kind of not really very polite, you know.

i hate saying stuff like that but it's true. so um, please clarify your position? thank you. i think most people around here respect your opinion, and i'd hate for you to give the wrong impression, you know?

thanks tony for the leads to the info. i thought something was fishy and it sure was!

hmm.

<-- blue hoovooloo brush?




wfg

Following in GTB's footsteps, I've done pretty much the same thing as he has. Follow the link under the header "Unsupressing Evidence" on my perssonal space.

I've edited that evidence only to the extent of deleting private email addresses and repetition, where a reply quotes previous content.

wfg: This is the "Don't Ban" thread. I posted here, because I supported Quincy.

For various reasons, including but far from limited to comments aimed at me such as "smart mouthed kid" and "very rude young man", and HUGE inconsistencies in Quincy's apparent knowledge of the onset of asbestos-related disease which make it very obvious that he's NOT what he says he is, I've decided to that I can no longer support him.

I would seem sensible to announce that fact here, because otherwise the last thing I posted in this thread would have been a message of support. I'm quite surprised I need to explain this.

H.

For similar reasons relating to Quincy's repeated demonstration of medical ignorance (explained elsewhere) I agree with the above.
Any support I previously expressed for continuation of Quincy is rescinded.

And so it goes. As Not Banned Yet pointed out elsewhere, the 'damning' bits could easily have been left out. I still think - despite the occasional similarities - that the bulk of the e-mails are different enough (aka "markedly dissimilar") from LeKZ' style to suggest reasonable doubt. Again, that's my opinion.

But look at it this way: who stands to suffer the most if I (and others) are 'proven' wrong? Quincy and/or Satyagraha? Naw - they haven't been around long enough to get really attached and find the non-threatening stuff to do here. LeKZ? They've already been banned before.

No. If this all falls out the 'wrong' way ("wrong" in this case being definitely a matter of opinion), Not Banned Yet will be the one whose reputation winds up in da gutter. I have quite willingly trotted out here in the howling wind with him - as have others - and I'll stay out here 'till he says it's time to give it up and go inside where it's warm.

Personally, I find it deeply annoying that his word carries so little weight with some. To assume that he is a mindless spokesdummy simply because he is LeKZ' housemate/partner/support system is belittling in the extreme, and far more offensive to me than anything Quincy or Satyagraha didn't have time to do here.

(NBY, you can just e-mail me my payola check when you've got the time. Do an IP trace. I'll likely wind up in Denver, and you'll save long-distance charges...)

[For the record, I wanted to point out for those who may wonder otherwise: neither Qunicy nor Satyagraha have ever been members of FolKZ or TrusT, or posted directly there.]

Surely, the 'damning' bits could only have been left out if the people to whom they had been sent believed that they were damning, which would mean they though there was a reasonable chance that
a) Quincy was either a side of LeKZ, or at least not what he claimed to be
or
b) Satyagraha wasn't simply a multiple liar, who is quite prepared to accuse h2g2 staff of lying, but actually was another side of LeKZ, and/or Quincy.

On the subject of editing damning bits, the mail I took most exception to was the one which begins
"h2g2 Editors: you are carbon copied on this by way of "evidence".", Although the h2g2 address didn't appear in the CC field of the header, I presume they had been copied to TPTB, and so editing of that particular mail (or other copied ones) would have been rather difficult.

That said, I was grateful for the honesty and completeness of the disclosures. They certainly helped me make my mind up.

I'm unsure how much literary style matters when placed against either a serious lack of supposed knowledge, or self-confession of multiple instances of deception.

I suggest revisiting that link in my personal space from time to time. Things could be added.

Potholer, a small thing;

I would suggest that 'literary style' mattered a great deal, since that would have been about the only thing to originally suggest charges of LeKZism in the first place. The alleged 'factual inconsistencies' appear in material generated *after* the fact.

-7rob7