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

If you really want my suggestion - scrap this garbage and start again !!!

The HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy site? Hardly. This is just probably the most pathetically misrepresented pile of crap I have seen in a long time. What is all this twee rubbish about stories and editorial from people everywhere? And the "chat" rooms - oh, God, I've seen more sane Star Trek fans... I wanted a site about the fun and zing and really wild things that the Book represented, not a plethora of trite meanderings about Biggles or how to make your own Christmas presents or f*****g Ginger biscuits!!!!! What sort of half-witted, banal, dead-end bunch of geeks thought that this site was even mildly entertaining?!? Does Douglas Adams REALLY know what is contained in this pathetic dross? Geez..if you guys were any less hip your bums would fall off...

Greetings

I'm sorry you feel that way Xolin. Perhaps if you looked around a bit more you'd find that the site does have something interesting to offer. And, you'll find the people around here to be a pretty friendly bunch. Douglas Adams does know what goes on here, and is supportive of the site. If you'd like to visit his Researcher page, it's located at http://www.h2g2.com/u42

I hope you change your mind about not liking the site.

42!

Phoenix

^..^

Thanks for posting such a nice polite response Pheonix. :-) Xolin has posted his first day 'evalution' of h2g2 in a number of places on h2g2. I've responded here, http://www.h2g2.com/F55683?thread=93045&post=766741, in the Community Soapbox. I'd be more than happy to discuss the quality of the content on h2g2 with him, once he's read some of it. ;-)

Does this count as spamming?

It's a close thing. It could do couldn't it? But I think we'll just put it down to juddering along the learning curve, in this case, yes?

It might look just a little suspect suspending them for such, erm, radical comments.

Hi Phoenix,

Thank-you for your measured and sensible response to my rather outrageous statement. I have been carrying on this argument on other parts of this site - most notably on the "Soapbox". As I have mentioned there, I am just disappointed that my first eight hours wandering around this site elicited no off-the-wall humour, clever articles or just plain "out there" stuff that one would sensibly expect from a site in the vein of the HHGTTG. Nevertheless, I will "hang around" and see what transpires...

Regards,

Xolin

Yes, I appreciated Phoenix's measured and sensible response - as I said to him (and others) I spent eight hours on my "first day" looking for the ridiculous, silly, "out there", "off-the-wall" stuff so closely associated to the HHGTTG, but was severely disappointed. I have, however, achieved my original intention - to bring this to everyone's attention. Your discussing same in open forum is a tremendous step toward shaking some from their delusional paradigms.

What a GOOD idea! Let's start by burning all the books we can find on any subject we don't like, then we can have people shot for opposing our views and jail others whose politics aren't the same as ours. Gee, it's just SO nice to be seeing the response to criticism handled in such an adult and measured manner. Even if, as I may deduce from those Really Clever faces you are all so fond of using, you are "joking", it is amazing what a text book response you have given to critique: 1. You close ranks 2. You refer to the critic as an "outsider" 3. You revert to personal abuse 4. you denigrate his ability or intelligence to criticise you 5.You make veiled threats 6.You make attempts to ensure that this sort of thing can't happen again. What a lovely little cocoon of delusion you have spun about yourselves...

Constructive criticism is always welcome. But posting "you're crap" in as many different places as possible tends only to annoy people. And doesn't really help anyone at all.

"Constructive criticism" is a term I have long been fascinated with and the only real meaning I have ever been to discover of this old saw is this: "If I like what you say about me/my project/my house/my collection of toe-caps et cetera, then you are giving me constructive criticism whether it is right or wrong. If, however, I don't like what you say about me/my project etc etc, then whatever you say is "destructive" or "negative" criticism, also whether or not it is right or wrong." Criticism, in any way, shape or form, then, is necessarily right or wrong from the interpretation of the recipient. So, if you don't like what I say about "your" site - no matter how I couch it - then that's your problem. And, if you are not willing to suffer some introspection for the sake of criticism, then you will always only ever accept "criticism" THAT YOU LIKE and you will always be stuck in a perpetual naval-gazing exercise. You may not like what I wrote, but if you see it as something to use for self-examination of your reactions, you may well grow a little....

[URL removed by moderator]

constructive

Serving to improve or advance; helpful:

HTH

Refer last posting, please. "Constructive" criticism is only that which you accept - if you don't like it, it is "destructive". Capite?
If you don't wish to acknowledge that there is banality, triviality and triteness on this site, then that's your outlook. Please re-insert your head in the sand...

I think I shall take the definition in the dictionary over your definition, Xolin. Unless, perhaps, your degree is in linguistics?

Perhaps an example will clarify things:

"You plagiarising bitch! Get lost and come back here when you can create your own content!" - not constructive.

"It appears that certain parts of this entry have been copied from _this_site_, which is against the terms and conditions of h2g2. I'm afraid that we cannot consider the entry for editing until these sections are removed." - constructive.

Can you see the difference?

Look-this site isn't about Douglas Adams's books, it's a multiuser online interactive information database based on a quite good, as well as prophetic, idea that Douglas Adams had and featured in his novels. So get off of it, will you?

My degree is not in linguistics - do you have a degree in argument, opinion, book-reading, tea-making, Websites or any other subject that you might like to argue on? Please don't take the tack of saying "you can't argue about this because you are not a ......(fill in the blanks)", because no one might as well say anything. Besides, i like arguing about just about anything and i was just starting to enjoy your comebacks....

X

er...nope, won't be told what to do - sorry. Besides, I'm enjoying this argument and diatribe, so unless you want to join in.....
X

What we really need is Mark's idea of a "Let's step outside" forum, where those inclined can flame to their hearts content... I may make one shortly...

I was just taking the tack of saying that I'll prefer my dictionary's definition to yours, unless you have inside information to back that up... I do agree that a lot of people misuse 'constructive criticism' as a term - but I think in this case people have a valid point - your comments here were unhelpful.

"This site is great!" is also unconstructive, but in this case it's kinda ok because it is positive - I would say that criticism should be positive or constructive - or go home. But why the heck should I tell you what to do? Can't see that you'd listen anyway...

Hey, you're probably right, I wouldn't listen...but that doesn't mean I won't defer to your argument - after a suitable amount of convincing, of course

The way to consider it is from the other person's point of view. If you just slag them off then you aren't contributing anything that might improve the situation, you are only hurting the feelings of those you are insulting. However, if you tell them what should be improved in careful, measured terms then even though they will still be upset, they can take something useful from it.

Flamebait words aren't constructive, they add nothing and just hurt.

That help at all?