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

We've pretty much exhausted this discussion, but I couldn't let this pass.

"I do /try/ to be civil, though evidently people think I'm not being."
--Smiley Ben, post #88 of this forum.

"Ignorance appears to be the only defence you could claim...Grow up, the lot of you..."
--Smiley Ben, post #1 of this forum.

This would not be considered "civil" in the States. Maybe in Texas...

Hey now. No need to move from freedom of speech to Texas bashing! Sure you have the right, but gee, why would you want to?

Jealousy. Petty jealousies everywhere.

To end with the words of a true Texan showing our bigheartedness (no comments on the big hair, his or others):

That's right, you're not from Texas. But Texas wants you anyway.
--Lyle Lovett

That's right, Lyle Lovett is so sensitive to my needs. My wife is from Texas and Dr Pepper is from Texas, so the place isn't a total waste.

We could switch from discussing free speech to discussing the gunslinger mentality prevalent in Texas. Brits might be surprised to hear that when you walk up to the entrance of a bank or hospital in Texas, you will usually see a sign reading "Please do not bring firearms into this building." If a bank or hospital or church or prison visitors' area does not post this sign, then you are allowed by default to bring your concealed weapon inside, in case you need to defend yourself against mortal danger. ugh.

Sorry, Stella. Some parts of Texas are really fun. Houston, for the most part, is not one of them. (I feel a blues song coming on...)

The gunslinger mentality is only prevalent with some. And we can thank current president George W. Bush in part for the concealed weapons law.

I moved to Denver, Colorado shortly after Bush defeated incumbent Ann Richards (speaking of big hair) in large part because of voter apathy; everyone assumed she would win. After I moved back two years later, the first time I saw a sign barring firearms I thought it was a joke.

I won't defend the whole state, but I will West Texas and Austin. Though like anywhere in the world people range from good to bad, Austin is beautiful and has an eclectic mix of people. Heck, how many places have Eyeore's Birthday Party and Spamarama as annual events?

Free speech for all. Pro- and anti- Texas!

Still, the minute they take away my right to own and operate a firearm of any kind is the minute I start stockpiling for the coming revolution.

Smiley Ben, if you're still there, this is really very simple:

We were playing around in our little sandpit. The emphasis here is on "our", as we felt that it belonged to all us kids in the pit. And it was a nice friendly place to be. There wasn't much fighting or bullying going on, we liked it here.

And now some other, bigger kids have taken over. They own it now. They've bought the pit, as it were. We're still free to play here, as long as we follow their new rules, and they've got some very specific ones about what you're allowed to say or do. And we don't think this particular pit of sand is as good as it was anymore. We feel we're being bullied by the big kids.

So some have left to play elsewhere, and others will follow. Us Zaphodistas just don't want to give up without a fight. That's all. At least in my own humble opinion.

Subcom - Yes, well, at least *I* try!

In the UK there are signs in banks/building societies asking customers to remove their motorcycle helmets before entering. Nothing to do with the thread, but an interesting addition to the Texan gun law.

I just wanted to tip my hat to Stella, as I'm a native born Texan who chose to stay in Denver, Colorado. I liked Ann Richards, mostly.

Just to add my Tuppence....

The reason that I object to *some* of the rules, although I can live with them, is not that they are rules per se, but that they have suddenly been forced (not the right word but I'm pushed for time) upon us after a LONG period of relative freedom.

The rules themselves are not significantly more draconian than before, but they are being enforced more. Piccies is my personal Bug-Bear as I took a load to go with a couple of articles I have in draft.

The "General Election" thing seemed to be in effect from the day it was posted - nothing indicated that it was anything but an offficial pronouncement....

I DO have an objection to this - I think that campaigning should be BANNED completely from all Media - esp. Party Political Bs(lets see if that gets a comment ). And I don't object that if you want to have a discussion particularly about the Election you should go elsewhere. BUT if in the middle of a conversation you say something about the election (the most likely way it will come up) you should be allowed to - as long as it doesn't get out of hand. And if it does the whole Thread could be moved wholesale elsewhere (where it could presumably be Pre-moderated - a really horrible Idea).

Must go now - train.....

For all that Coloradoans don't like us Texans, there sure are a lot of us there!

I just found Denver a little boring. Beautiful state. Absolutely gorgeous. But regardless of where you live in Texas, I think on general it's more interesting. Love it or hate it.

Though I did get my love of hockey while there. Go Avalanche!

Sorry, I'll stop being off topic now, after one last thing. Ex-gov Ann Richards was given a Harley Davidson. Don't know that she ever did much with it other than pose on it before returning it. But goes to show there's fewer differance than you might think. So the sign says no guns instead of no helmets. We like both.

It would have been a little different if the two boys who went on the rampage at Columbine Highschool were carrying motorcycle helmets instead of firearms.

I was going to say something really flippant at this point, but decided not to!

Both rules make complete sense in their own situations, the Gun one being rather strange (and somewhat more scary) in that it seems to be just a "request", whereas the "No Helmets" one is more strict and more obviously enforcable.

I'm coming into this conversation a little late, and it just took me an hour to read the backlog... Just a passing comment on the "you can always go elsewhere", "wait for things to calm down" and "slippery slope" sentiments found in various postings:

Say, for example we decide to hang around for a couple of months, and if it doesn't get any "better" to move on and meet elsewhere.

During that couple of months, they decide to stop allowing URLs and e-mail addresses on "home pages" too...

Now, you can still talk to your "friends" here, but can't arrange to meet elsewhere as you can't point them to an external URL or give them your contact address.

This is exactly the tack Yahoo boards have taken, allowing you to send someone an e-mail through the board, which doesn't let them contact you in any way except through the board. Some people think this is to protect minors from giving away their e-mail address (although, ironically, the system doesn't remove postal addresses) but I suspect Yahoo like the fact that people can't decide to move out en masse...

I'm not saying this is a "slippery slope", simply that we trusted H2G2 to have all our threads and links here when we returned, and then found they'd been removed. On that record there's no guarantee they won't do something similar in the future. If you have any "special friends" here, now is the time to make certain you have their current e-mail address, in case the worst should happen.

There is a need for some moderation but I don't feel that all external links and pictures should be banned. If they are pornographic or basically illegal then I agree with the BBC that they should be removed, preferably before a member finds them.
The BBC has every right and indeed an obligation to legally moderate what appears on it's site. Same as with TV hence the 9 O'Clock watershed.

However if I want to put up a picture of my new cat wearing a bobble hat because I think it looks cute then I don't see a problem with that.

I think it will take a while for the site to settle down after the move, changes have to take place before people are really happy.

Perhaps the guide could email members who haven't rejoined asking them to either renew their entries or decline their membership. Getting rid of many of the 'under moderation' signs.

As for the languages I think the BBC team need some better translators if they are having that much trouble, why not employ Foriegn moderators of even students who are doing language courses, a benifit to both sides.

But please don't go into what your rights are, we are in the 'House' of the BBC abide by their rules.

No Spitting

Mel

A voice of calm....

WE CAN'T HAVE THAT!!!

And if you do have to Spit - can you do it in the BOG puhgleese, else outside in t' garden!

Mel,

You mention some good points, but we've heard the "house of BBC" analogy before, and I still don't think it applies. I never heard of a house that was boarded up when the guests all went home. We can debate whether there is any chance of all h2g2 researchers will abandon h2g2 in protest or in boredom, but just the possibility of that happening tells me that our relationship with the BBC should not be seen as the relationship between a host and a houseguest.

h2g2 is a complex system, and it's going to take a lot more discussion to figure out what our relationship with h2g2 should be.

Its taken a while for me to find this thread - partly because I defected for a while until the BBC restored my personal space, and until I negotiated an acceptable name with them.

I confess I have not read the whole thread, and other people may have made this point.

What I find disturbing is that the BBC - is that as an national and an international brand - it is based on fairness, liberality, lack of bias, freedom, justice and all that is good about Britain... 'n' stuff like that.

Now I have been wary of the BBC for a long time, because I have seen them be self-censoring, have seen them quash and ignore valid debate, and manipulate information in all sorts of other nasty ways.

AND all the time they are PROMOTING their squeaky-clean brand.

THIS is the double-bluff that sickens me.

In addition - as I say on my home page - what is here called "moderation" is one end of the path which has imprisonment, and repression at its other end.

:-X

a girl called Ben

But a path has two ways to it.... And can branch in many directions in the meantime. .

Just because it could lead to that extreme doesn't mean it will - and its up to us to make sure that it doesn't!!

Hmmm.... I can think of a few examples of that - where the program maker has slanted the story/facts to suit their own ends (investigative Journalism I think they call it), but all channels I have seen are guilty of this - most MORE so than the beeb.

Of course, it could also be that the Beeb, having been around so much longer than its current competitors, has become more skilled at hiding its corporate biases...?