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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A811478

Bossel has suggested that I submit this quickly-knocked off bit of silliness.

I'm not arguing with him.


trying to catch a

sooooo...
Who's bored and prowling through the backlog of the back-dated backlog?

Someday I need to update the Waitresses page to remove all the ones we've already used. That cement vibrator entry made it into the Edited Guide. They really do have a sense of humo(u)r sometimes.

How sad that I missed that little episode.
I should try to miss more.

I tried to update Waitresses, pulled out a few that I recognized now in the Edited Guide as well as ones that we've used, but it's becoming a huge list. If anyone recognizes something on the list that we've used or which has been accepted to the Edited Guide, let me know so I can update it.

funny to see what divergence of replies a simple smiley can trigger

Dear, there ain't no such thing as a 'simple' smiley.

No?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A536988

Hi, Boss!
This stupid thing is all over the net.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?q=Principia+Discordia&uri=%2Fh2g2%2F

And DNA....

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1559500409/104-7548972-9799153?vi=glance

and I think it was written by
Robert Anton Wilson... et.al.

I poked around a little bit because I was under the impression that the Principia Discordia was public domain. According to a conversation on the Edited Guide entry on Discordianism, the book is copyrighted, but the authors give reprint permission to anyone who wants it. F32717?thread=147026 In fact, I thought I heard some discussion in the past that this was a minor controversy with the Editors of h2g2, because it took significant convincing before they believed it wasn't a copyright violation to post it on h2g2.

Maybe if we clarified that the entry was not authored by the person who posted it to h2g2, then it would still be worth using for CAC? I don't know if the fact that it's plastered all over the web means it's old news, unsuitable for CAC, or if that's all the more reason that we should mention it.

Okay.

I think the fact that it is quoted and 'reprinted' all over the place and the edited entry on 'Discordianism' means that it's outside the purview of the the CAC's proto-underguide mandate.
I mean the silly thing is practically ubiquitous.
Kinda like that stupid list of 'what happened to the men who signed the Declaration of Independence', only not as spurious.

Now, if someone wants to be 'inspired' by the 'P.D.' and cranks out his own little slice of confusion, then that is what we live and breath for. At least I do.

Or, if you want to do an issue of CAC on 'inspiring influences', then that would be kind of interesting.

If that were the case, I would suggest one of the versions of Tony Hendra's 'Deteriorata', from the National Lampoon Radio Dinner show.
I never tire of that.

eww!
Did I mark it as 'weird'? I wasn't actually meaning that it was CAC stuff (IMHO it's somewhat tooooo twisted, at least for me poor non-native it doesn't make lots of sense, not to speak of humour.

Sorry about that, Bossel. I didn't realize that you had not meant to nominate it for the Waitresses page. I just removed it.

You're right, tonsil. It already has enough attention without our help. I'd feel better promoting an entry by some first-time writer than reprinting a text that's already widely known in some circles. (And which probably wouldn't be appreciated by many outside of those circles.)

So should we open another category of sorts? 'Well-known weird wish-wash' or so?