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

Yeah a whole disclaimer might be a bit too much. There is this footnote right at the first GUY, it says it's mostly guys who initiate this sort of thing - true - but why as a footnote? I think it wouldn't disturb at all if this sentence was in the main text body.

Then there are many passages like:

* Some ladies will be....
* That's right - you're not Brad Pitt...
* ...for your partner, in her mind.
* She is counting on you to be as paranoid as she is.
* your partner is happier because the only bit that gets "saved" is the bit she's happy with.

I am not saying I disagree - in 99% of the cases it's just like that. I just think there might be a nice way to sound balanced without using that (IMO) stupid PC 'hir' or use 'his or her' all the times. The text should be preserved as it is now, for that reason I suggested the disclaimer...

HELL

Just goes to prove you can't please all of the people...

See posting 3 of this thread - there WAS a disclaimer in the original version - a whole introductory paragraph. I took it out when it was suggested that there was no need for it, but left in the footnote because I thought I still needed to say /something/.

I think it's OK as it is, to be honest, and I agree with Mina that apologising for writing about reality seems a bit old-fashioned.

Yeah - as I said - it reads good as it is, and a whole introductory paragraph might take the bite off the Article.

I am just a bit concerned about the Edited Guide standard. I mean, Edited Entries have to be as balanced and as neutral as possible. With this Entry - as it stands - this is not the case. Maybe adding a very small parenthesis somewhere in the beginning, that says that all of the following text is written from a male perspective (and here you could add your footnote that explains why - because in 99% of all documented cases it's the guys who initiate this sort of thing) would be enough.

What do you think?

HELL

PS: One could also suggest to do that in the title, so it's clear right from the start. "Home Made Pornography Do's and Don'ts (Male Perspective)" But I don't like this solution.

HELL

Hmm. Actually, you know, I LIKE the idea of changing the title, just not to that... I'm thinking along the lines of "A Gentleman's Guide to Home Made Pornography". Nicely ironic, and it wouldn't necessarily put off the ladies in the audience.

Good idea!

Sounds great!!!!

HELL

OK, title's changed, and I've changed some of the wording too to tie in a bit more with the title.

Does it work?

Anyone?

I think it works wonderfully. Very well done!

Thanks!

Great fun !, As a gentleman with an intrest in 'art' films I will soon be suggesting to the missus we star in our own grumbleflick.
A question however, Is it not considered romantic to zoom right in at the *cough* money shot ?

Hmm. Interesting question. Some answers occur...

1. Zooming is almost always bad. It's distracting, and people tend to overuse it. Better to frame the shot properly in the first place.

2. You CAN change the framing of the shot using the zoom, but you'll end up with a better product is edit it into a cut.

3. "the money shot". Hmm. If you want one, I suppose. Closeup, or wide angle. As with most things, experiment. See what you like. I could tell you my preference, but I wouldn't want to prejudice you!

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

I'd just like to thank everyone who responded positively to this entry (those of you who are still subscribed), and would suggest you now briefly check out the entry again.

I've personally never heard before of an entry being retrospectively removed from the EDITED GUIDE after passing Peer Review...

This does strike me as extremely odd. I don't mean to sound paranoid. But if I was someone who'd had a lot of negative dealings with the Editors, I'd almost think they had it in for me or something.

Lucky I'm not... isn't it?

FB

It sounds like decision handed down from a position of power over and above that of the h2g2 editors.

It would be nice to have a proper explanation for this decision. So perhaps the senior 'editor' who made it ought come on site and explain.

I'm particularly baffled by the fact that a guide to Alfresco Sex (which is an illegal act in the UK now) remains visible. As does an explicit review of various brands of condom.

Indeed, C499 lists a number of highly explicit entries, almost all of them more explicit than what I wrote, all of them apparently OK.

Gotta wonder what I've done to be singled out...

FB

I've started a thread in Askh2g2:

F19585?thread=288228&latest=1

If you've any comments to make, please do so there. It'll keep things easier to follow.

Thanks!

FB

I doubt that either a) the 'senior editor' from the BBC who may or may not have forced this removal will make an appearance on h2g2, and b) that the condom entry will be pulled.


Scout