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

Hoo, I was originally wondering if you were still around, to ask a question about the Busard Ramjet entry.

When I ran across this piece, I was intrigued by the generally silly idea that this person has about their direct line to God. But I also began to wonder why you would post a collection of such silly rants.

Even so, I thought that I might get some idea by checking out the 'notes' at the bottom. As I don't know where the originator is, I'd like to post my observations on the notes here.

1) I don't see how you can make this assumption based on the attributed quote. There is nothing in it that allows this to logically follow.
2) Interesting, but the referenced researcher sounds more like quotes from religious tracts, than rants based on hate (or love). Perhaps, in situ, they were more clearly contradictory.
3) Not much to go on, but anyone who thinks they recognize the Antichrist, is likely delusional. It sounds more like a callous insult, than a believed statement of fact. Incomplete quotes are virtually useless though.
4) No real contradiction here, really. One is a statement of his own lack of concern of acceptance by his fellows, and the other states that he expects not to be liked back as well. They actually reinforce each other, and his anti-social attitude.
5) I think that this is the most self-contradictory statement attributed. Amazing that he should equate 'constructive' and 'discrimination against Christians'.
6) In the Christian faiths (among which I number Catholicism), Saints are made by bearing persecution in the name of one's faith. For Christians, I suppose this has to be the equivalent of an iron cross, or congressional medal of honor. From his point of view, it does make perfect sense.
7) It does sound here as if more than a couple of researchers were hoping to enlighten the author on a kindler, gentler version of Christianity. Strong opinions often inspire a need to discuss. It's amazing that he seems to like discussing, but feels persecuted unless it is he who sought it.
8) I have to agree. I don't know how one would even begin to do the survey, especially based on such a narrow-minded dogma.

I suspect, strongly, that you and I would agree much more than either of us with him. However, not being involved in the heat of the moment, I could reach each of these attributed quotes as a calm and rational statement of personal belief. There was very little that (out of context) seemed directly insulting to anyone. More like it was learned and engraved in concrete, never to accept critical thought or discussion.

I must say though, that the most truly disturbing aspect of the piece is that anyone would bother to collect all of this without a personal agenda of their own, especially if no names, links, etc. identify the poor sot. This is the sort of vendetta-like activity that I would normally have expected from the mindset of the original quotee.

I hope you are feeling better, whatever his perceived injuries to you might have been.

Hi Fords,

Justin the Preacher is the researcher whose elliptical ramblings and forthright claims to divinely authored infalliblity inspired the article.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/U195767

one love

Fords:

Only just found this. Some responses then:

1. It does logically follow. He said "you expect me to answer your charges against God, as if God has to answer to you!".

The logic implied here is this:
Proposition 1: you expect me to answer to you.
Proposition 2: God should answer to you.
Proposition 3: proposition 2 is *obviously* ridiculous,
Proposition 4: Since 3 is true, Proposition 1 is also obviously ridiculous.

However, 4 only follows from 3 if "me" and "God" are equivalent.

2. Yes, context is relevant. However, this entry was mostly for my benefit, and context is in my memory.

3. Well, it shouldn't be too hard to work out who he thinks the anti-Christ is. Put it this way - do bears s**t in the woods? Is this person Catholic? And yes - likely delusional. Kind of the point of mentioning it.

4. Um... they DO contradict.

Proposition 1: I don't care what people think of me.
Proposition 2: please report to me what people think of me, because it is important.

There was an agenda. Justin would appear in new places, in new conversations. People who hadn't encountered him before would engage with him, based on little contact with him. All such engagement was completely pointless, except insofar as Justin got off on the inevitable disagreements, since he sought persecution even where there was none. I compiled this entry partly for my own amusement, but also partly as an aide-memoire and somewhere to point people when they asked the quite common question "what the hell is wrong with this guy?". If, for instance, they'd only had exposure to his views on, say, feminism, it was useful to be able to say "look here, at his other views. /That/ is the context of what he's saying to you, and what is wrong with him is Christianity." It was quite helpful at the time, and did save several people some time they might otherwise have wasted trying to stimulate Justin into conscious thought.

I never felt injured by him, by the way, except in the sense that I'm injured whenever I see potential going to waste, and I don't think I've ever seen a clearer case. He seems an articulate guy - it's just that what he chooses to articulate is the most repellent crap that he really, honestly seems devoid of consciousness, literally. That thought led to the prank account "Steve, Programmer of Justin the Preacher", which, if it didn't necessarily convince anyone for long, certainly made a few check...

H.

oops

Also, what was the question re: Bussard ramjet?