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

ok.

firstly - entries are not jokes, and are not meant to have punchlies, and it wasn't funny.

monogamy is not a sexual practise. it may be a practise, but unnatural and sexual don't come into it. also, if this entry is about monogamy it shoul be clearly titled as that.

the title also is unaccurate as it is Unnatural Sexual Practices when your entry seems only to deal with one, which isn't really a sexual practise.

the facts do not offer much information, and certainly not much information of monogamy.

if this entry is about monogamy, it must have an accurate, clear description.

also, putting that research was done does not specify who or what type. u need to go into detail about the research, and how you came to your results and conclusion.

ok, i've commented on what i can remember of the entry. i may re-read then entry again tomorrow and comment again.

spook

What Hoo is doing seems pretty clear to me spook. Mind you I have been wrong about that before, and I may be wrong this time too.

He has written an entry which takes a presupposition and forces us to look at it. This particluar presupposition is that we are all understand and agree what the term 'unnatural sexual practices' means.

We don't. There is no agreement on that subject. But doesn't it sound great? 'Unnatural Sexual Practices' - a phrase to get the blood boiling (one way or the other) isn't it?

And yes it is a joke, but a joke with a point.

Or maybe it makes a point, but makes it humourously.

But hell - this is a Serious Issue of Morality, and Not To Be Taken Lightly. Naughty naughty Unnatural Hoovlooloo!

an unnatural sexual practitioner called Ben

1. i make a lot of typos, and my ability to read and understad is very great. i did not ask for an explanation fo monogamy ebcause i do not understand it, but because there should be one in the entry.

2. the writing guidelines are guielines to be followed when writing entries. but just ebcause an entry meets the guidelines does not mean it is ready or suitable to be in the edited guide.

spook

reply to Ben's posting:

yes the entry does make u think about the issue, but it does not provide the accuracy or information which is needed for this to be an edited entry.

and if this is a joke with a point, then hoovooloo please remove this joke from peer review.

spook

spook, a lot of entries, many of mine included, are jokes with points.

Life is wa-a-a-y too important to take it seriously.

a pointed joker called Ben

i have nothing against entries that are jokes with points. they are simply not suitable for the edited guide. submit them to the post instead.

spook

"firstly - entries are not jokes, and are not meant to have punchlies,"

Assuming you meant "punchlines", I refer you to:

A650675 which most definitely DOES have a punchline, albeit one ruined by the editorial requirement for third person voice.

And:

A649749. Do you consider that Edited Guide Entry to be entirely serious? I'm sure there are other examples. I'm just listing the ones I've written...

" and it wasn't funny."

Your opinion. But if it's not funny how do you explain this:
"I don't agree with you but couldn't help laughing while reading" from post 3.
"you could simply give yourself a pat on the back for giving us all a good laiugh" from post 10.

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it isn't funny.

"monogamy is not a sexual practise."

See post 13. Just because you don't think it is doesn't stop it being.

"it may be a practise, but unnatural and sexual don't come into it. also, if this entry is about monogamy it shoul be clearly titled as that."

I agree. But it isn't about monogamy. Hence the title. If you've missed the point so badly, I'm afraid I can't help you.

"the title also is unaccurate"

The word is "inaccurate".

"as it is Unnatural Sexual Practices when your entry seems only to deal with one, which isn't really a sexual practise."

The POINT is that a certain type of person rails against "unnatural sexual practices", while being too pig ignorant to even know what is and isn't natural.

Since you had to ask me what monogamy is, I feel I'm wasting my time and energy debating this point with you.

"the facts do not offer much information, and certainly not much information of monogamy."

Pardon me for taking the advice of the Peer Review page: "Guide Entries are aimed, in the main, at the educated layman". The educated layman could be reasonably assumed to know what monogamy means.

"if this entry is about monogamy, it must have an accurate, clear description."

I disagree in the strongest possible terms. If an author were required to define clearly and accurately every word they used, just for the benefit of illiterates and people who can't be bothered to look up words the meaning of which they don't know, they'd never get started. Every Guide Entry would be 20,000 words long and the first 19,000 would be definitions. Get real.

"also, putting that research was done does not specify who or what type. u need to go into detail about the research, and how you came to your results and conclusion."

Why? It's the bloody hitchhikers guide, not "Physical Review". I *could*, if you like, present an academic paper on the subject. You'd be even less likely to understand it, and FAR less likely to read it. It would also be too long and boring for the Edited Guide.

"ok, i've commented on what i can remember of the entry. i may re-read then entry again tomorrow and comment again."

Please do.

H.

It seems the scouts and the italics disagree with you spook.

A827381
A778124
A738821
A724970

And those are just the ones I wrote, which I list because I could find them quickly.

Lighten up, lovie.

a point with a joke called Ben

"i have nothing against entries that are jokes with points. they are simply not suitable for the edited guide."

The Editors appear to disagree with you. I wouldn't worry about it if I were you.

H.

Hmmmn... Didn't realise it got so warm round here. Started off with a couple of pats, then a dig, now its gloves off and lets gouge eyes. Great !

Given the title other examples should perhaps be mentioned.

I think the opening paragraph should read more like this -

Bigots, churches and tabloid newspapers often condemn certain sexual practices as "unnatural". Bizarrely, the sexual practices that they often level this accusation at are ones which are common in nature, especially among our closest genetic relatives, the pygmy chimpanzee or bonobo. These include infidelity, homosexuality, and onanism, though not bondage. Anyone calling such things "unnatural" mainly exposes their ignorance of what is and isn't natural.

This should have the effect of suspending the critical facilities and ensure the arrival at the conclusive statement in a suitable frame of mind. Yes ?

Failing that - "Would participants please leave their coats in this area here, that bystanders may more easily examine the contents of their pockets. Thank-you"

Hi McKay:

I can see what you're getting at, but I disagree.

"These include infidelity, homosexuality, and onanism, though not bondage."

I'd rather leave it to the reader's imagination what are considered "unnatural sexual practices". Everyone's ideas will likely be slightly different. For instance, my personal impression is that such people rail against homosexuality and possibly the things that encourage onanism (i.e. porn), would certainly consider bondage unnatural but consider infidelity merely immoral, not unnatural (this lets them feel better about having done it themselves, or at least thought about it).

I really don't want to give the reader any more clues than I do already. It's a "think piece", and if I lay everything out on a plate, I'm not encouraging people to think.

Plus... if I do keep it as it is, there's a better chance some people (including some people who've commented in this thread...) will get all the way to the end without spotting what I'm up to. They will then (demonstrably) experience a severe dissonance when they read the punchline, and come away confused, not knowing what to think. I LIKE THAT.

H.

OK so I only skim read the previous posts...

Is it funny? In my opinion yes...
Is the title misleading? Yes, that's part of what makes it funny.
Is Hoovooloo flattering himself by saying he has met all of the Guidelines? Well yes, but he was funny with it.
Is Monogamy a sexual practice? No, but a monagamous sexual relationship is!

It's all there but it is't a finish article it needs a spot of filling out an ope mind about changing a bit here and there...

Is that vague enough or could I vaguer in my little critique?

ben: i just scanned those entries u mentioned. i didn't have time to read them properly but from what i can see they were interesting, funny AND informative.

this entry:
i didn't find it funny, that is just opinion
it was a little interesting, making you think, but it is very inaccurate and the title does not represent the entry. the ones in your entries do
this entry is not informative enough.

spook

spook...

You say "it is very inaccurate".

Back that up with ONE, SINGLE line from the entry which you think is inaccurate, please. Just one.

H.

It's probably worth repeating the following words from the Peer Review page, under the section "How to Comment":

"Ask yourself if you actually understand the entry? Guide Entries are aimed, in the main, at the educated layman, so if you didn't understand it, it may be a failing of the author. On the other hand, it might be YOU"

H.

one inaccurate line: the title

maybe u would considor acting on critiscism and not insulting the people giving the critiscism hoovooloo. but, since u seem to be insulting me, and saying i don't understand, and since it says ask the author to explain just after the bit u quoted, please, explain this entry to me.

spook

oh, and earlier on in this thread u asked what the point of the writing guidelines were. well, it says on the writing guidelines page:

"Here are 12 top tips for Researchers who want to write great Guide Entries."

They are tips for writing good guide entries. Just because an entry meets the 'tips' doesn't mean it is edited guide material.

spook

"one inaccurate line: the title"

The title is *not* inaccurate. The fact that you don't understand why that is doesn't mean it is wrong.

You said the ENTRY was, and I quote you directly, "very inaccurate". Please explain yourself.

"maybe u would considor acting on critiscism"

Give me some I can act on and I shall. Give me more that proves you've missed the point and... well.

"explain this entry to me"

I don't want to waste space in the PR thread doing that. Please go here... A853553.

Thank you.

H.

read explanation. re-read entry.

1. i understand the humour, i simply personally did not find all of it funny.
2. by the entry is very inaccurate, i mean it is very inaccurate because the entry does not represent the title, and visa versa. this entry is interesting, and at some points it is funny, but it is simply not informative enough about Unnatural Sexual Practices to go into the edited guide. also, i think someone else mentioned it in the pr thread that the entry is not balanced. it is only looking at the issue from one perspective.

spook

OK spook, I think it's clear you aren't going to pick this. That's fine. I could respond in detail to that last post, trying probably in vain to explain AGAIN why the title is what it is, but there's obviously no point. I'm going to leave it there. There are other Scouts of course, who may view it differently.



H.