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

Entry: The Darwin Awards - A978889
Author: Farlander - scientist, quackspert of things that go blastedly missing on sodit mornings, professor of longwindedness - U206300

i kinda think this needs a little bit of sandpapering, but basically everything that needs to be there is already there. look through it if you will - i would greatly appreciate your input.

I'm amazed that there isn't an article on this already, knowing the humour on this site.

This will certainly make a very good one

You kind of skate over the second way to earn a Darwin - removing your genitalia or the possibility of procreation in a messy way. It's worth a mention.

There is also the slightly gruesome debate over whether eliminating your own children in a foolish way should also theoretically qualify, as you thereby remove your own idiot genes from the pool? Maybe a brief mention?

Sprout

Good job farlander!

A friend of mine was at Stanford ath the time of origin of the Darwin awards. It seems that when emial emerged on campus and everyone began forwarding chain letters, jokes and junk mail, that the Darwin awards actually THRIVED in that system.

people participated like mad.

I'm glad you've written a nice article for them

I like the article the way it stands.

Perhaps a little tinkering with verbiage, but that's about it!

Cheers!

Friar

Very good indeed Just counting the days until this one makes the front page

all that, and not one word about socks. shame on u....... socks have feelings too, u know.

I'm glad you caught this hole! I have only read the second darwin awards book, and they deserve appreciation, they're very entertaining

yeah lol did you read the one about the trombonist who tried to do his own pyrotechnics display at a performance of tchaikovsky's 1812? as a trombonist myself, i learnt a very very important lesson there

i'll tinker with it some more. and yeah, i was surprised too that there are no eg's on the darwins. there was actually this guy who tried to write a bit, but it was only a para long, and was written two years ago. of course, being decent, i tried contacting him to see if he'd like to do a collab - i think he's gone the way of nighthoover though...

by the way, sprout - as far as i know, removing your genitalia is just a *little* short of the 'ultimate sacrifice' and thus probably does not qualify for an official darwin - but i believe people who'd done such things earned 'honourable mentions'. did you read the duct tape story?

According to the first book, to win the Darwin award, you have to remove yourself from the gtene pool i.e. lose your ability to produce offspring- therefore, rendering oneself infertile in a stupid maner carries the same level of eligibility as causing your own death in a stupid way.

that's true...

i'll tell you what - if you (or anybody else) can find me a funny example of how somebody removed his genitals, i'll bung it into the article with a link to the original! i'll correct that paragraph later when i have the time. thanks!

It's not really funny, but a knife?

Try checking out the 2000 Darwin awards, specifically the 'Lobster Vasectomy' award.

Well - if you want auto-castration, then how about this honourable mention?

http://www.darwinawards.com/stupid/stupid1997-10.html

Ok, he may only have only got halfway into completing it, but the discussion below the letter about whether an inability to procreate counts is interesting

Great entry by the way - and an excellent gap-plugger too

Stay ,
WD

Ah - just ignore me - you've already mentioned it

Just adding my approval.

Nice one


Geggs

I see everyone else is commenting on the content, so I figure it's my duty to be the irritating pedant here (although the English is excellent, just a few typos and convention-breakers) :

1. In "How did the Darwin Awards first come about?" correct 'materiel' to 'material'.
2. Lose the horizontal rules, they're not approved GuideML.
3. Rather than writing "...appendage" each time, consider putting it in quotes or italics as this is easier to read, and still implies 'for-want-of-a-better-word'.
4. Possibly make "I want to know more about these population control volunteers!" and "Bet you never knew these people won Darwins" into lists.
5. If the "REFERENCES" section is meant to be hidden, put it inside outside of the element, else it might be a good idea to put the title into title-case (ie. "References").

Other than these minor details, thoroughly enjoyable, and well written.

~

Yeah nicely written - straight in I'm sure.

er... re: 'i want to know more...' and 'bet you never knew' - i'm pretty *sure* that they're already in list form... i'll go check, hang on - yep, it is. funny how the h2g2 bullets are square - i'm so much more used to round ones.

have lost the ruled lines. i had no idea they were not approved... ah well, one learns - thanks, mate.

oh, by the way, whoever sent me the 'scrotum self-repair' article - it's already in the article, but thanks anyway! that was a *good* one, wasn't it? ditto lobster vasectomy.

by the way, i never meant for the 'reference' to be hidden (i have an annoying habit of listing refs at the end of my articles), so that's ok, but thanks anyway.