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

A688476 is on my page and still titless but the new version isnt.

but horeey! FABT

been and had a look, have to say, it's longer than the 'hidden' message! is this progress?!

Fingers crossed - eh guys

Ben

'titless'?

Was that a freudian slip?

Surely you meant untitled?

It appears to have gone again. Could it be that the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing?

Surely not!

Ah! That's why it was gone.

i can say titless if i want

A753527 - F*****' 'ell that was quick! Its in the Edited Guide already

all round.

It's been hidden again.

No its only the original version (A688476) that has been hidden, and been hidden for months (and will probably always remain hidden). The version that the Italics have written (A753527) based upon this original is there in Guide and standing proud

*wonders of it will be on tomorrow's front page as well *

Silly me! Thanks Grey.

read the comments on the new entry at the bottom of its page. it wont be on the front page, but we get it in the guide as a trade off,.

Wahey!

Nice one Ben
vp

... with half the words starred out. Woop-de-doo.

-Xanthia (feeling distinctly underwhelmed)

Its not as if the reader is really left wondering what the letters are behind the ***s though - there are enough examples, acronyms, and rhymes ect around each of the ***word for it to be pretty academic whether the entire word is actually there or not I reckon.

vp

It's just weird. Normally these words just need stars, and you can say that fxxk rhymes with duck (or even fxxk a duck) without a problem. But for some reason Ben's entry needed stars throughout, a socking great big disclaimer, 'the f-word' instead of 'fxxk', a bunch of rewriting, *and* couldn't be linked to from the front page. What gives?

I'm also not particularly happy with the fait accompli nature of the thing, though I realise there were pure motives for that. I've never liked it when sub-eds make major changes to an entry, or add a bunch of extra information, and I don't like it here. If these additions were so good, why weren't they suggested in Peer Review? Why wasn't it left to Ben to make those changes in the places and the way that she saw fit? Why didn't we get a chance to comment on the changes?

If there was ever an entry where the swear words were editorially justified, this was it. I'm pretty sad to see that the BBC have bottled it so comprehensively, and I wasn't expecting it.

No champagne for me, thanks.
-Xanthia

fine, i'll have yours then.

FABT

Having had a chance to read it in detail, I am interested in what has gone. Minging for example. And Pish. And bumming a fag of someone. (Which my ex actually said).

I am going to discuss this with the Italics, and possibly do an 'out-takes' version.

Lucinda, the objective was always to test the system. Test as in experiment, not test as in exam. You may be able to pass or fail exams, but you cannot pass or fail an experiment: the result is the result. I think the final entry tells us exactly what we need to know on the subject of asterisks.

B