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

I can see you place a lot of importance on it. I am not sure why, it is only one of hundreds internet communities out there.

The fact still remains that the original comment has now been deleted as well, so you *cannot* claim that you are repeating something already on the site.

You are *perpetuating* a remark which has been judged offensive and removed accordingly.

Or are you saying there is a special case for *you* to be allowed this remark in an article when the original has been removed?

Absolutely not. I'm in no way a special case, and don't want to be treated as one.

But if an entry of mine keeps getting moderated for using a phrase which appears intact and unmoderated in posting 3 of this thread - written by YOU, Blues Shark - doesn't it start to look as though *one* of us is a special case...?

It's my contention that the phrase, IN THE CONTEXT I was using it, is *not* offensive. Discussion of bigotry is difficult if one is not allowed to quote the opinions of one's opponents. I was interested in the community's opinion.

So far, to my surprise, it seems opinion is coming down on the side of complete censorship, and not even allowing the phrase to be QUOTED in discussion. Except, of course, by you, Blues Shark...

H.

I have to side with Hoo on this one. All he's "guilty" of is reporting. The original poster is the party guilty of bigoted intolerance.

Was the original remark condemned by other researchers on the thread where it was originally posted? If so, should those posts be removed too? I think not.

Noggin

Hi Hoovooloo,

We don't discuss individual Moderation decisions on site, and that includes decisions where we pass things, but I think I'm okay to say that as you can see from your first post (where it's been quoted twice), repeating this comment in this discussion in this way is fine.

Perhaps you stand accused of persecuting the researcher in question, H.

I do not think Hoovooloo is persecuting the researcher in question, or has the intention to do so. He objects to his ideas.

In this context I am glad not to call myself a Christian, as what this guy claims Christians should do or think would make me deeply ashamed.
I rather call him a biblical fundamentalist fanatic.

It looks like the editors and mods have problems with the repeating and amassing of the offensive texts. Maybe these sentences should be partly starred out, like "the XXXX is the Axxicxxxxt" when an observers points to them, while the original one gets modded.

Back banging the underline drum are we, Hoov. How terribley dull.

Come on, get over yourself. Is the guy really worth all this stress. the less you publicise him, the more he is a lone voice in the wilderness. He's no threat to you *or* anybody else.

You're an intelligent guy. Why pick on people who are so less able than you?

I wasn't suggesting H *was* persecuting the researcher, just that he may stand accused of doing so, by collecting all him idiotic vitrol into one place. Not that I imagine for one second the researcgher in question would care.

I don't believe that this is a case of persecution, by Hoov, or against him.

I do think that's a monumental waste of Hoov's considerable intellect to continue baiting the particular bigot in question.
I think it demains Hoov by giving him the time of day, and *might* risk someone assuming that Hoov was a s bigoted himself.

I don't suppose it is either. More a case of so much hate filled crap together is unacceptable.

However, I don't really have a problem with H making it his mission to hold the guy up as a pillock- it's H's time, and presumably it either interests or amuses, or both, otherwise he wouldn't bother.

His risk, too. Doubtless ian paisley sees himself as a voice of reason amongst Popish hordes.

The outsiders view might be somewhat different.

I don't think the two are really comparable, Paisley adds his own brand of retoric in reply, H hasn't done.

Oh, come on. The very creation of the article is a rhetoric in and of itself.

Hmmm, I can see where you're coming from, however, to take your example further- Paisley says "this is what X says, it's evil and disgusting and a sin and X will burn in hell for it".

Whereas H has said "this is what X says, I don't agree with it". I think it only comes across as rhetoric because the views expressed are offensive to you and me- however, if J himself were to read the article, would he find it offensive? Catholics find Paisley offensive, and it all boils down to one big slanging match. H doens't attack his opponent outright- so there is attack for J to reply to.

Hmm, true.

I must admit that like Otto the Fisch, I am reasonably uneasy about the prospect of *any* researchers words being compiled in this way. You could a make a case for a great number of people being nothing more than trouble makers, whingers and generally unpleasant gits in this way, and none of it would necessarily be true.

How about if H put links at the bottom, to each of the conversations Justin has been involved in, it can only be 8 or 9. That way it is clear the quotes haven't been taken as out-of-character samples. Would that quell any uneasiness?

"Back banging the underline drum are we, Hoov. How terribley dull."

Actually no, I wasn't, but since you bring it up...

In case anyone doesn't know what BS is on about, about a year ago I speculated that there appeared to be two classes of user - the normal ones, who have to abide by the House Rules, and a few "special" ones, who apparently could get away with bending or breaking the rules without any consequences, and that if any other user disagreed with them then the management would take the side of that person in all cases, regardless. I suggested it might be advantageous to know who such individuals were, so you didn't accidentally express an opinion to or about them and thus risk getting banned from the site. Underlining their username was the suggestion.

The concept was suggested by the behaviour of the management towards one particular person, of whom I've heard nothing since.

But I only ever had cause to suggest that ONE other person might be an "Underline". I suggested that in November of last year. It was hotly denied by both that user and the staff that they were in any way a special case.

Less than three months later, that same user JOINED THE PAID STAFF of h2g2.

Coincidence?

And now BS brings up that old argument. As it happens, BS, I wasn't suggesting that you were subject to special treatment. The fact that you live with the member of the staff referred to above is surely completely coincidental. I'm sure that despite that personal connection to the staff you are nevertheless treated exactly the same as every other user.

This thread is NOT about special treatment, favourable or unfavourable. Let's try to keep it on topic.

What I'm asking here is, is the phrase "church leader X is the Antichrist" so offensive that one cannot use it in ANY context, even if that context is the condemning of people who express that opinion.

And if something can be considered to offensive to even talk *about* - how do you discuss it? How do you oppose it if you disagree with it?

H.

As I said on the other thread, the difference is between reporting and merely repeating. In the hypothetical example of the anti-semitic MP, the news team would probably feature comments from outraged citizens, perhaps official condemnation from the main part offices, and perhaps a hard-hitting interview with the MP - or film of the team going round to his house and harrassing^H^H^H^H^H pressing him for a comment.

That's reporting. Had HVL done this, then the quote should have been left up, but the actual entry was just repetition, so reporting is no defence.

-Martin

As Lucinda has pointed out in the other thread, context is everything.

To discuss, one needs to understand what was said. 'XXXX is the anti-christ' is meaningless. It could mean 'Blues Shark, Hoovooloo,, Ronald MacDonald' or any number of other candidates, none of which are likley to be offended.

However, a practising catholic might well find the phrase 'the pope is the anti-Christ' offensive.

But we won't know that unless we ask, will we?



>So far, to my surprise, it seems opinion is coming down on the side of complete censorship, and not even allowing the phrase to be QUOTED in discussion. Except, of course, by you, Blues Shark...<

I'm terribly sorry, but that comment clearly accuses me of receiving special treatment in being able to post the comment whilst you were not.

The capitilisation of in your post about staff at H2G2 above says more about what this is all about than I ever could about what is really behind all this, I fear.