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

What do you suggest in place of *kissy-face*? Thanks for being specific.
are there any more *specific* points? Be specific.

Again with the attitude!! Y'know I am only trying to help you. If you don't want to be criticised, then don't submit an article, OK?

*has a sense of deja-vu*

I've given you plenty of advice!! Try listening!!!

Saturnine, is it impossible *not* to offend you? I was thanking you for being specific and encouraging more of it.

Are you sure? Kinda sounded like sarcasm to me...if it wasn't then

It wasn't sarcasm. I like it whan you tell me specifically what I can do to make my review better.

Can you tell me what I can change *kissy-face* to?

I think something along the lines of "public displays of affection", "cuddling", or "physical intimacy" might do, depending on the situation being described. I'm sure others will have some ideas, too....

Mikey

I'd go with *physical intimacy*

Thanks.

I'd get rid of the spoiler alert at the top as well. I'm writing an article on the *Stigmata* film right now...it's not worth the effort.

You're right,"physical intimacy" covers it the best.

You're right, when was the last time a spoiler warning stopped you from reading anything?

Well, it's a good method of making your article really interesting!! But yours doesn't need that methinks...

Ture, it is a good way of making an article seem interesting, but then the article has to livee up to the impression!

Ture, it is a good way of making an article seem interesting, but then the article has to livee up to the impression!

Saturine's right here. The idea of the edited guide is to present a rational and well reasoned entry on a subject that allows those reading it to form an objective and informed decision on that subject. A review of any kind, just like any human endeavour, can't escape from being influenced by opinion. But the simple fact is that you can pretty much measure the maturity and skill of the writer in the extent to which his opinion intrudes upon the tone of the article for better or worse. When was the last time that you read a review of a book in the Times and found that the reviewer used a line like the ones that pop up in the aforementioned article?

Maybe you should think about pulling the article from the peer review until you feel that it has been tweaked to the extent required and then stick it back in there? It's not nice to write what you think is a funny, honest and well written piece and then post it here to have other researchers seemingly shoot it down in flames. But you have to remember that they are only asking you to abide by the same guidelines that they themselves respect in their own writing on the guide. When a researcher critisizes your work they are not attacking you as an individual, you have a right to think that a particular book stinks but no matter how many witty comments you use to dress it up the fact remains that all you're effectivly saying is: "This book sucks." You can always stick a personal opinion in the unedited guide, but the EG demands a bit more sophistication.

If you want a good example of what I mean then take a look at my unedited entry on manufactured pop bands. I dropped that into the peer review a few months back and Jimster pointed out that it was at the most basic level a rant against that genre. At the time I was burnt by the criticism, but in hindsight (which is always 20/20) I admit he was right. I could change the article on a fundamental level and re-submit, but I feel that it would destroy the integrity of the piece. So it will stay where it is for the foreseeable future.

And go on, apologise to Saturine, there was no insult in what was posted.

Nylarthotep, it looks like you are asking me to do something you yourself are not prepared to do.

Why don't you try reading the whole thread and then reply, or just post your comments without attacking me for insulting people?

I feel that I cannot weak it in a way that will satisfy everyone *by myself*.

I can't see where I ask you to do something that I won't do myself. The article in question was removed from the peer review by my own hand as I was not prepared to alter significant portions of its content in order to meet the requirements of the EG. All I was suggesting was that maybe your article was too much of a rant.

I accept that I have failed to read the complete thread, but I got as far as Saturine's first comments and the rather hostile response they recieved and did not realise that the conversation ahd gone further. Upon closer examination it seems that you have been open to ideas about the content of the article and on that point you have my apologies at least.

Satutrine has offered support and constructive criticism in the past and you have to admit that one sentance at the end of a lengthy post about the tone and content of the article asking that you be nice to the other children you play with is hardly an attack.

Kudos for your efforts to change the article and listening to the comments posted here, but lighten up and take a chill-pill.

I'm not trying to hurt you, I'm trying to help!

And if you feel that the article is something you cannot alter "by yourself," why not try the collaberative writing workshop?

I agree with the Collaborative W.Workshop...Jimmy, maybe you should move it there...?

That would be my suggestion.