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

for what you said to the person whose name i can't remember in the colorado thread i started. you know, i'm /not/ interested in the old story. it's all politics and i hate politics. unfortunately this new story is based on an old one. (that's kind of how reality is... too bad trouble doesn't pop out of a vacuum and then vanish like a soap bubble, huh?) and i'm a professional student, meaning i'm useless for any kind of meaningful work and will be among the first to starve when the revolution comes but now the history is almost starting to interest me.

almost.

i might read it. i don't think i have enough guts to comment, since it's raw-nerve city for some reason.

but thanks about saying that it's on the front page and stuff. i have a couple of questions but i'll only ask you if you want to talk to me. i mean about things you said.



wall flower girl

A pleasure.

I'd prefer not to chat about the past history of LeKZ on h2g2. I'm reading those threads because of my interest in the Transgressions Procedure, and how it can be improved - that is all. It's a somewhat painful story, and I don't feel that it's relevant or useful to those who don't already know. I also severely doubt that anyone who didn't live the experience will ever understand it enough to offer useful insights.

Let sleeping dogs lie - lest they bite you
-Xanthia

um no, i didn't mean about the sleeping dogs. i'm not getting near them. (i'm /sure/ tacsatduck said lie, and nothing at all about dogs... but maybe the dogs do too, in which case i'd learn nothing from them.) no. i was curious about your comments about:

if you've got an untraceable connection, having to provide some proof of id. i don't know about that. i'd be scared to. i don't know what would qualify as proof, and isn't that kind of a slippery slope to a private club? i'm asking your opinion, because i wouldn't be comfortable giving id, and i don't know whether my account can be traced or not.

your comments about a murray strauss m.d. and the notion that this guy was just lekz using that guy's name... how come you didn't give quincy the benefit of the doubt?

i don't understand how come there wasn't more giving people the benefit of the doubt. it looks like the other situation people kept mentioning with lekz coming back under another name was so totally obvious it was like she was hardly trying or something.

if the guy who lives with her says "no way, absolutely not." doesn't that pretty much close the case?

i'm only asking because i'm puzzled, because to me the whole "case" against quincy looks like pure fabrication, and then it looks to me like satyagraha got in trouble for defending quincy, because he'd done nothing wrong (not even a "flame war" which given some things a few people have said in the don't ban quincy thread now looks like quincy flicked his bic) at all but that, and everyone jumped to all kinds of conclusions even when the /editors/ said being in the metro denver area is not conclusive. but people jumped on it as if it was fingerprints. caught red-handed. all that.

i don't like it when people aren't fair, and i'm not sure what your angle has been. you've seemed to be supporting what i thought was a pretty biased and questionable couple of presentations from the editors. that's my opinion. i'm interested in yours. i don't care about the history, really. i wish people would have not mentioned it. it kept being dragged back up as if it were relevant.

i'm timid. but i'm not dumb. that's why, especially since what you said about me seemed to be a sort of reversal of your position, i got curious.

you don't need to answer any of this of course. i don't want to know anything that's going to stir up any of those lying dogs.

wfg

This is something you'd be better off discussing in the appropriate place - not here. However:

* I misinterpreted the Editors use of the word 'untraceable', so my comments don't apply.
* I feel that, in Quincy's case, the evidence prevented so far is beyond reasonable doubt. That is my personal opinion, and is unlikely to change unless I see new evidence.
* I don't have an angle, I'm simply posting evidence to the various threads that may be relevant to the Editors decision. That is all.

Goodbye
-Xanthia

my mistake. sorry.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Martin Plus (now 20% less sulphur)' to 'Suspension of Quincy's h2g2 Account'. This Conversation has been moved following the request made by Lucinda here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F55683?thread=160925&latest=1#p1648680

Thank you
-myre

Maybe I'm wrong to ask, but when you say, "I feel that, in Quincy's case, the evidence prevented so far is beyond reasonable doubt. That is my personal opinion, and is unlikely to change unless I see new evidence." -- do you mean evidence that is available publicly? Or possibly some evidence that the public has not seen?

I haven't seen anything beyond circumstantial evidence on h2g2 against Quincy or Satyagraha (although it convinced me on first reading). I'm a little confused now, because NBY is a strong witness. I don't believe he would lie, or even mislead in a lawyerly way like Bill Clinton or like Barton would do. Anyhow, if you could drops some links to any non-circumstantial evidence visible on h2g2, a lot of people would appreciate it.

Hear hear.

H.

Deidzoeb - I've seen nothing that isn't circumstantial, except for Quincy's apparent refusal to provide proof of ID, and NBY's alibi for LeKZ. The word 'evidence' in '...the evidence provided...' referred to such circumstantial evidence.