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

Hiya H,

How's the back situation? Mine's giving me hell today, I'm just about to go and lie down and stretch on the bed...

Anyway, I've been keeping tabs on the whole Quincy thing. Damn mess it is too. And saw on your page and from the thread that you won't be posting in a while.

Come back at once! , I've almost finished my evolution article and the deadline for the project is the end of this month. I know your busy, as am I, and I know the politics of this place are annoying in a very nitpicky BBC way, but people are relying on you to get this project seen through to the end. I for one have worked hard on my entry, and when it is finished I will be proud of it.

Let's hope that Quincy's entry can be salvaged in some way.

And also there's a good thread with Josh and I at the moment at his userpage (under "Racism and the Right Wing").

Anyway, just thought I'd drop a line to see how you are.

Ste

Deadline, schmeadline!

Seriously, you're right. I had to put a deadline in to satisfy the conditions of the Uni Proj scheme, but I'm not seeing it as concrete. I'll be keeping an eye here after all, thanks to your timely nod!

If Quincy doesn't bother giving the eds any proof he's him, it looks like I'm going to have to write the entry he was going to do myself (unless you feel like volunteering... ). I'm also still looking forward to Josh's input, and I haven't nudged Mikey for a while for their "spectrum" entry. I'll be doing all that later today, I think.

For now, thanks for reminding me what I came here for in the first place!

H.

*remembers DNA's deadline quote*

But it is good to give it structure, otherwise entries would just trickle in at a snails pace and eventually nowt would get done.

Could we (i.e., are we allowed to) copy n paste from Quincys post in the thread where he went over the history of creationism to an entry? The we could edit it about a bit then put him as the main author and whoever edited it as a contributor?

I'm sure Mikey and Josh will deliver the goods. I can't wait to see Josh's "positive reasons" entry.

Check my "Theory of Evolution" entry out: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A673319.

>For now, thanks for reminding me what I came here for in the first place!
Glad to be of service, Sir.

Ste

"Could we (i.e., are we allowed to) copy n paste from Quincys post in the thread where he went over the history of creationism to an entry? The we could edit it about a bit then put him as the main author and whoever edited it as a contributor?"

You can use as much as you like of whatever Quincy has written here in any entry of your own. Look below the box every time you post to a conversation thread, and you'll see "Remember, when you contribute to the Guide you are giving the BBC permission to use your contribution in a variety of ways". That includes using postings in entries. So, use as much as you like...

Just to be clear, I'm not actually *expecting* a "positive reasons" entry from Josh. Personally, I don't think such an entry is even a logical possibility. What I am expecting is (a) "what I believe about creation (and why)" and (b) "the problems I have with the theory of evolution".

No response to the first entry is required, I think, or even appropriate. I'll have a go at the response to the second one (although I may bother you or others for some help). I'll also do an overview/index entry, and possibly have a go at the "paradigm" article Quincy was hinting at. Shame he couldn't do that himself.

Will check out your entry soon. Cheers...

H.

For Quincy's entry, why don't we do that then. Save ourselves a lot of work. Here's the link to the conversation: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F82087?thread=160325 Perhaps "positive reasons" wasn't a good description, I was describing something that was not just a negative rebuttal of evolution. Must dash, hope you like my entry... Ste

Hi Ste,

I've just found out that "Quincy" doesn't mind our using his words. I'm quoting here from an email he sent to the Editors, which has been posted publicly by GTBacchus at a place you can get to from his personal space.

In that email, Quincy says, and I quote verbatim:

"So, I'm asking you to let me know, can he [i.e. me] or someone else use the ideas I put in my post, whether or not I'm credited, to write a thing of his own?

If I can, I specifically request that he and nobody else is allowed to do that."

So, obviously he is OK with *me* doing it, he just doesn't want anyone else using it - touching the faith he has in me, isn't it? (Of course, if he didn't want me to use his words, he would have said "neither he NOR anybody else is allowed to do that", and he didn't, he said the EXACT opposite).

I'll get to work on the entry based on that posting tomorrow, should have it done quite soon - like he said, it doesn't need much work, and I've already got it copied to notepad...

Just in case you're reading, Quincy - thanks for the permission to use your words.

H.
Snotty smart mouthed kid.

Hoovooloo, your out-of-context use of Quincy's words hasn't vanished as a posting for a suspended researcher, so this shouldn't either. I'm just adding the context. What Quincy says, and I quote verbatim, is: "See this link here, http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F35246?thread=161583&post=1650821#p165 0821, where that smart-mouth youngster Hoovooloo thinks he's going to take my comments from this post here, http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F82087?thread=160325&post=1627644#p162 7644, and turn them into a university project article. I don't see as how I necessarily want him to do this, especially since I'm not sure I'd write that article for him if you let me back on your service, because I think he's a very rude young man. I didn't know this about him before. In regular day-to-day life you can't pick your colleagues. In recreation, if it's going to be fun, you don't work with, let alone for anybody you think is kind of a snotty kid with a big mouth. So, I'm asking you to let me know, can he or someone else use the ideas I put in my post, whether or not I'm credited, to write a thing of his own? If I can, I specifically request that he and nobody else is allowed to do that. It may be obvious now, but it took me to point it out to them. The BBC co-owns this and every word I said there, but if you don't let me back on, and I hope you do, for a lot of reasons that I'll tell you in a minute, please just make that posting of mine disappear, and insist that kid don't try anything funny with making like he thought of it himself. He can read Thomas Kuhn and Darwin thirty years ago and come up with it himself, like I did."

Thanks for this. I'm not sure it changes anything...

To paraphrase:

Provides link.
Abuse.
Speculation about my intentions.
Provides link.
Doesn't NECESSARILY want the entry written.
NOT SURE if he'd write the article.
Conditional on if he is allowed to use this site again.
Statement that he thinks I'm rude and young (bless you sir for the latter! ).
Observation that you can't pick your colleagues. (odd that, I did - if you don't like them, change jobs - people do it all the time)
More abuse.
Question about use of his words.



Specific and very very clear request that I be the *only* person allowed to use his words.
Observation of a fact.
The next sentence is very long and rambling , so I'll break it down.

It starts by admitting that every word Quincy has posted here is non-exclusive copyright the BBC, as per the T&Cs he signed up to when he joined.

It goes on to express that hope that his ban won't be for life, and promises reasons for that hope.

It then asks that the editors make his posting disappear. (he could do this himself with the yikes button if there are reasonable grounds for disappearing it).

It then patronises me further, but of course I'm used to that by now.

It then makes the appalling and outrageous suggestion, without any justification, that I might attempt to pass his work off as my own. This is despite it being very clear to anyone who can actually read English that the conversation above makes EXPLICIT the intention to credit him if his words are used.

I object most strongly to the implication that I may in some way plagiarise the work of someone else. Anyone familiar with my history of writing entries for the Edited Guide will know that I am EXTREMELY particular about giving credit where it is truly due, even in situations where the credit belongs with someone who has been banned from using the site. It is shocking ignorance verging on defamation to suggest I, of anyone here, would engage in plagiarism.

The last sentence doesn't make any sense unless the writer is in possession of a working time machine, and so must be assumed to have been inserted for comedy effect.



Thanks for providing the full text, NBY. Quincy seems quite uncertain in the first few paragraphs (what with the "not necessarily" and the "I'm not sure"), but in both the version I posted and the version you posted, his request that I be the only person permitted to use his words remains explicit and very, very clear.

Since you seem to be in contact with him, do please pass on my thanks for this vote of confidence, and any abuse you think appropriate in response to the patronising and insulting comments he made about me. In the light of Potholer's comments elsewhere regarding his near criminal ignorance of the effects of asbestos despite claiming to have been exposed to the stuff AS A DOCTOR, questioning his medical competence might be the way to go. If you can't think of any suitable abuse, I'm sure there's someone close by who can.



H.

And finally, just to nail this to the floor, Ste, in case you care, the Editors have spoken here:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A683778

Specifically in the section labelled "h2g2 Editorial to Quincy, 21 January", they say that, and I quote: "Basically it is perfectly legal for h2g2 Researchers to take anything anyone has contributed to h2g2 and to re-use it in h2g2 contributions of their own." They go on to quote specific legal stuff about what people should already know if they're using the site and paying any attention at all.

To sum up, whether or not Quincy is banned, and whether or not he wants me to (and whether or not he continues to patronise and insult me for no reason that I can see, since I *supported* the ungrateful old coot), since he's posted that stuff in a conversation thread here, I can do whatever I like with it as far as incorporating it into an entry of my very own. Legally, I don't even have to give him any credit whatever if I do that. (I'm surprised that someone who claims to be intelligent enough to have qualified as an MD would have either neglected to read the terms and conditions he was signing up to when he joined, or possibly read them and didn't understand them.) By the terms of the site, and my own well known standards, I will of course make sure he is credited when the entry is written, banned or not.

For what it's worth, I agree with his speculation that he would probably have made a better job of the entry than I will. We may never know. Or care, for that matter.

H.

From what I can tell he wasn't too keen on us using it, but he cannot do anything anyway so who cares. Especially now he's banned.

I don't know why he thought you were rude. Or young for that matter . I suppose sometimes you can be a bit forthright.

Lets use the post. I'll hopefully have my entry finished this week sometime, I'll give you a shout.

I have to get back to work now, see ya.

Ste

Hey, this whole conversation was done entirely for my own amusement anyway - I knew perfectly well what the legal and "site rule" position was regarding using the content of that post from the word go. Comes of actually paying attention.

I'll use the post, with whatever minimal changes are necessary to turn it into an entry that fits in with the theme, and give Quincy credit, exactly as I would have done had he (a) been perfectly happy for me to, (b) been dead set against it (c) been an entirely fictional character.

Some time soon, the back's sorting itself out nicely...

H.

Glad to hear about the back

I'll look forward to reading the entry when it's done, we should just put all this behind us and get on with it.

Ste

That "puddle of water" quote from DNA (that I saw you use in the original creation vs evolution thread) should be used somewhere in the Uni Project. I just used it in my ongoing arguements with Josh, who is of course wrong about almost everything he talks about .

Anyway, go here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/FFM78168?thread=160012&skip=40&show=20#p1671427 and follow the link for the full transcript of his talk that day. The moderaters have been nice enough to leave the link where it is.

What do you think?

Ste

I gave this entry a good polish up and added a quote from a prominent theologian who deals with science and religion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A671717

I think I would consider this one finished now.

Back to my evolution entry....

Ste

PS. I took the plunge and went with a overly-long h2g2-stylee nickname. I feel all new and shiney...

Sorry to butt in here, but I'd like you guys to look at what I have written.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A686937

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/A675858

These are my two entries. Neither have been spell or grammar check, because my lousy word processor can't. I certainly welcome any suggestion that you or the others may have.

Josh