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

I feel sorry for Natalie 'cause I am ill in bed too .... Glad my brother lent me his laptop so I can hootoo from bed

for Natalie and one for Ferretbadger too.

F

Thanks fathom!

I'm not entirely convinced of the therapeutic value of

Wouldn't & be more useful?

Anyway, wishing a quick recovery to anyone who needs one right now

Ah, ok, I got it now, Abi.

The issue of a descrepancy between EdPol's, yours und our understanding of these guidelines remains, however. I firmly believe that the Italics are on the site's side.

"The issue of a descrepancy between EdPol's, yours und our understanding of these guidelines remains"

Remember the article was cleared by the editors AND included in the edited guide, then was pulled from above.

Isn't the issue surely that EdPol have made a decision about the guidelines, over and above the heads of the h2g2 Editors. And what we are waiting upon (and getting upset about) is an answer from EdPol as to WHY they've made that decision.

In the meantime I see no reason why I shouldn't send a polite letter to any member of BBC Senior management about this (or any other) issue. Because as their annual report says, the Corporation is accountable to the license payer. And that's me.

Were I a teacher, I would not object to someone going to the headmaster with a problem I was already aware of and unable to sort out. But I would, in those circumstances, appreciate a copy of the letter/email/whatever.

Hope they get a response.
Waz

for Natalie and FerretBadger. Probably better than loobrushes since it's a painkiller and mood altering substance.

Thanks!

I think you mean thats us GreyDesk.

I agree with Peta: I enjoy dealing with the issues arising from my work. I dislike dealing with the issues arising with someone elses work.
The party line is that these decisions are the work of Editorial Policy. If this is true, then they should deal with the issues that arise from that.

I note that rather than spend time dealing with the issues that arise, Editorial Policy would rather spend time commanding that another article be deleted. Programmers are advised to fix existing bugs before adding new features. Perhaps similar advice could be passed on to BBC policy enforcers?

I'm still amazed that it's taken them several weeks, and they still seem unable to tell us why they deleted these articles. I know that introspection is a dying art, but being able to explain the reasons for your actions is one of the things that distinguishes humans from our primate relatives.

We know they can't actually be monkeys. After all, you need opposable thumbs to operate a computer...
-MyRedDice

Don't chimps have opposable thumbs?

Ah well. I guess that EdPol got the message by now. I mean they got some reaction from the Italics and at least the three e-mails published in this thread. So I'm sure they know how we feel about it.

Exactly my thoughts... and I can type and use the mouse without thumbs too.

Look! I can even type with my forehead:
hggvbwezpnds

Chimps aren't monkeys though, any more than Orang Utangs are.

from the Librarian, brachiating in from L-Space.

Hey, that is a Terry Pratchett reference! How dare you post that on h2g2?!

from Tube, arbitrating through cyberspace

Hey, I am *negotiating* cyberspace.

Look I have been speaking to a journalist pal of mine. He explains to regularly pieces he has submitted are not acceptable but the editorial process goes as follows:-

First He submits the piece, then it comes back saying:-

"This cannot go in in its current form because of a)this, b)that, c)this and d)that so i)change this, ii) this, iii)re-word that and iv)delete that totally.

He explains to me this is pretty standard and what all editors in the media do, it is their job.

f he is correct (and I am sure he is) then why have the editors from EP not done this?