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

I was hoping for more discussion of the first of those two messages. Ahh well, you takes what you wants I guess

Re: David Irving. "But fortunately he was instead taken to court in Britain (by an American holocaust survivor, I believe) and was told that his arguments were flawed here, here, here, and here."

It was not Britain that took Irving to court, but Irving who took someone else to court for libel in Britain, for saying that Irving lied about the Holocaust. So even Britain is not as overzealous as France and Germany and some other countries. But the court found that Irving was not libelled, further that most other historians disagreed with his claims, and Irving had to pay the court costs for the woman he was suing. I don't think there was any punishment handed down to Irving for being a holocaust revisionist. He was "punished" in so far as he brought an unneccessary lawsuit to trial.

But your point still stands. I agree that it's better to air these smelly opinions, discuss and expose them as lies, instead of censoring them.

Here's a BBC story from 11 APR 2001 "Hitler Historian Loses Libel Case."
http://news6.thdo.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/newsid_709000/709128.stm


[As I've written before, I definitely don't side with these people who seek to revise history just because they want history to endorse their political beliefs. But anyone who wants to know about modern censorship has to read about the ways these clowns have been censored by France and Germany, etc. As Noam Chomsky says, "It is a poor service to the memory of the victims of the holocaust to adopt a central doctrine of their murderers."]

No! You can't do that. I wrote what I saw as the history of the Irving case and there you are, you just come along and revise it. Bad show.
Okay, perhaps I was wrong. But the case did take place in Britain didn't it? I was never any good at modern history, but THAT modern?

Hey, SubCom,

Hell's Teeth ! Was that a genuine:

"Here's a BBC story from 11 APR 2001 "Hitler Historian Loses Libel Case." " BBC report
and a genuine:
"[URL Removed by Moderator]" ?

Are you going to appeal it?
Shall we all?

Going straightaways to Moderation Help Desk....

Maybe the moderator got confused by the prefixes about "news6" ahead of the bbc.co.uk. Anyhow, whatever the censor's excuse, I dumped a rant on the Moderation Help Desk.

Was it a Moderate rant or was it Immoderate?

I have noticed a few Beeb Urls being removed by moderators - I thought people were being "funny" by putting the [URl Removed By Moderators] tag in...

No, the moderators were being "funny" by forgetting or ignoring the House Rules.

We shouldn't blame the moderators. Blame the people who decided moderators were necessary.

Hey, Jefe,
That did the trick. It's in it's rightful place.
In the word(s) of the old witch:
"Rejoice!"

Who are whom? The Beeb?

Did anyone see the Question time - meet the leader - special for Tony Blur? The only one I've seen, but I thought it was dreadfully unbalanced, in terms of the questions asked - almost made me feel sorry for the chap! Maybe he could play Zaphod in the upcoming movie!

Also made me wonder how much flak the other leaders got - oh and I wonder if - to be truly balanced - they will have meet the leader for the other parties (green, NF, Independant (can you imagine Jordan on QT? Hehe!)

Okay, here's my pennyworth on the subject of moderation, as someone who occasionally lurked here during pre-BBC days and has noticed the difference.

Smiley Ben is right, of course, that the BBC pays for this site and can therefore do whatever the h**l they want with it. Which doesn't change the fact that what they have done is very stupid.

The rule banning posting of external links seems to be the product of a very small, fixed, bureaucratic little mind that can't tolerate having different policies across it's different websites. "We check every link on the BBC News website, so we *must* check every link on h2g2 as well, even though everyone but me was happy with the old policy. Really, we have to, it says right here in my little rule book..."

And as for blocking "profanity", that's an ostrich's policy. If you see something you don't like, just stick your head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist. Maybe it will go away...

Honestly, the people who have that kind of attitude are the real juveniles, not people who just happen to be under the age of 18.

But, if these idiots are now in charge, then there's not really any way to get rid of them. I'm sure they'll be very happy once there is nobody left here except for 15 or 20 bible-bashing bigots.

I used to think the BBC had more sense.

moyabrit

Moyabrit,
Welcome back.
It didn't take you long to find the deep end.
If you put "something" on your personal page, folk can talk to you directly.
Share and Enjoy

I hereby nominate plaguesville as High Epopt of Society for the Appreciation of Atmospherics from the role-playing game Paranoia. (Not sure what a "High Epopt" is, but J.R. "Bob" Dobbs was one, so it must be awesome.)

By the power vested in me as very temporary, acting "High Epopt of Society for the Appreciation of Atmospherics" I hereby declare as follows:
1. Subcom. Deidzoeb is a very important and busy man and cannot oversee all of the activity of his supporters, and
2. Whilst all of his decisions are flawless, his staff do not always get things right, and
3. Plaguesville is a mere hanger on and not the intended (nor worthy) recipient of the high honour which is deservedly bestowed on moyabrit for the fine introductory address and who, I am sure, will live up to the excellent slogan:
"Freedom of speech != freedom from offense ..."
and not be offended by the administrative glitch.

I just ran across this forum in August and noticed that while it was a hotbed of controvery in April now it seems dead. It kind of reminds me of the book of Job where the three friends were advising the main character about what he was doing wrong. Except in this case I rather side with those who say it is Censorship.
Smiley Ben says that "the only thing that has changed is what you can say here on a website someone else is paying for" but he misses the point that the researchers did not asks the BBC to pay for this website. Then again I have not heard of any group of researchers banding together into a cartel to purchase the site from the BBC and privatize it. This is not 1776 when a small band pledged "their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor" to be independent of the British Crown.

Quite...

Erm ...
Not Quite.
The April shower has all had its say. I suspect that not many changed an opinion. There is little point in restating entrenched views. Each side is aware of the other's thought (and, I like to think, appreciating the reasoning without agreeing or being disagreeable) but new contributors are always welcome to join in with the same views or new thoughts.

Hi, Shagbark,

I keep running across this weird argument, which could be summarized as "WHAT DO YOU WANT FOR NOTHIN? RUBBER BISCUIT?" Which is to say, "You don't have to pay for h2g2, so shut up."

This ignores the fact that h2g2 is nothing without its community, would have no content without its community, probably would not have been purchased by BBC without this established and happy community, and some of this happy community pre-dates BBC ownership of h2g2 by a year or two.

Anyhow, whenever people bring up money lately, I just want to point a finger and accuse them of being capitalists. Unfortunately, the kind of people who bring up the money argument wouldn't understand that they're being insulted.

I THOUGHT CAPITALISTS WERE PEOPLE WHO SHOUTED ON BULLETIN BOARDS...

ugh. Capitalists. Leaves a bad taste in my mouth.