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

I return to h2g2, and within a few days I find myself wading deeper than advisable into a debate about what kind of stuff should be in the EG. And once again I find myself being misrepresented as having a blinkered mindset and vision of what an EG entry should be about.

So, these following points encapsulate, for the record, what I think the EG should be about:

* Each EG entry should be able to stand on its own merits. You should be able to pick up a magazine with a short article in it, plucked straight from the EG, and read it as an entertaining article in its own right without having to understand its original context. This implies:

* It should not be an exercise in being part of a clique or belabouring an in-joke. I dislike cliques and in-jokes at the best of times, these simply showing that you are a sheep of a slightly different colour. When some of my license fee goes towards publishing this drivel, I start to see red. This view in itself implies that:

* It should not be written to 'pay homage' to Douglas Adams or his works. Paying Homage is a feeble exercise in humour at the best of times and shows a lack of originality. We have a rump of people here who seem to think that they just need to tick a set of boxes to get their work accepted.

* Finally, it should have some grounding in the concerns of others outside h2g2. That is, people who have never visited the site beforehand. I'd like to see people *share* their *experiences*, mainly because NO OTHER site is set up with this express purpose. Moreover, the EG should be a *starting point* for getting people to try new things or take a different look at the world around them, not an end in itself.


Now, the next time someone has the effrontery to accuse me of trying to impose my vision on the Guide, perhaps they'd care to acquaint themselves with what I've written above so they actually know what they're talking about. It would make a change.

FM:

Point taken. Your comment was interpreted as meaning that my entry making it into the EG was somehow 'poison', which would be perceived as 'causing the death of'.

No, I didn't say that I WOULD leave, but that it might come to that. But, you are correct that nobody is forcing me to do anything. However, even negative rules are supposed to follow certain rules. The guidelines call for being supportive, not nasty; for making observations on what is wrong with an entry, not ranting that it shouldn't be accepted because YOU can't be bothered with the subject matter.

You are the type of reviewer that will cause the guide to be without hope. And, yes, the treatment you meted out was 'shoddy' in both function and form. You did not create compelling arguments, you just ranted. You did not point out anything wrong with the entry, you just ranted.

No it wasn't pretty universally disliked; it's just that those who think like you chimed in consistently that the subject wasn't to their tastes.

I didn't 'dislike' what I heard; it's just that none of it had any value. You never said that this or that wasn't factual; you did not point out any writing guideline that was violated; you didn't even point out a spelling error. You just ranted.

It's strange that you bother saying it was not informative, partially because it wasn't meant to be and partially because your point was that non-fans wouldn't know what I was talking about. Well, if they didn't know, the information was in the entry.

There is not 'real debate about the Question' in your experience. The problem is that you're so self-centered that you can't consider that others have different experiences, and different levels of conversation. If there's no debate on the Question, why does your entry 'Alpha: the Key to the Universe?' begin with the sentence: 'The Answer to Life, the Universe and Everything, contrary to popular belief, is approximately 1/137.036 or 0.00729735.'?

I suppose that we should all write about rubber gloves and holy socks?! Boy, THAT's informative reading all right.

All that aside, I was quite interested to read your take on what DNA 'was trying to build'. I can't say I don't agree. I believe he had in mind a world-wide travel guide, written by those who had lived in the places enough to really be able to set visitors on the right path to enjoying what the areas had to offer.

So, why do you think it is that h2g2 doesn't reach out to people who never heard of DNA's works? And, why don't you think that it shouldn't reach out to those who have? And why not encourage, rather than discourage, those who have been around for years working on it? And, what does ANY of this have to do with making it irrelevant if you feel it already is?

One wonders why you stuck around, or came back. Because it 'needs people like you? Not in my book. I'm sorry you don't realise that your asking for an army of researchers who think like you, because that's exactly what it looks like your pushing for.

Heck, your PS is FULL of your h2g2stopoistic manifesto:
"If people want to indulge in idle chatter, they can always put links to blogs, Facebook & MySpace..."
"I just want to say how sick to the back bloody teeth I am getting of a particular exercise in modern myth making."
"New Order's music is a load of crap too. And the name stinks."

So, I'd 'care to acquaint (you) with what...' you've written below.


FordsTowel

From the Writing Guidelines:

What Should I Write About?

Write about reality
[The reality is that intelligent people often enjoy debating, but occasionally need a structure for the debate to stay on topic and in scope.]

Write about subjects that can be verified
[Everything that DNA ever wrote can be verified through a brief review of his workds]

Be original
[Nobody has written about how to debate the ultimate question, yet a lot of people write about 'ultimate questions' that would make DNA cringe. He had the intelligence and logic necessary to point out what doesn't work and why, even if he had no interest in the 'Question' itself. By your standards, nobody else is interested, so it must be original.]

Fill in the gaps
[There is an entry on the answer, the gap was that nothing worthwhile had reached entry status regarding the actual UQ.]

Write about what you're interested in
[All of Douglas Adams' works interest me, yet this was the first time I thought to write about them.]

There are Tolkein fans who endlessly debate this and that about the stories. Similarly, there are Doyle fans who debate Sherlock Holmes life. I just feel that DNA deserves no less. So sue me, but spare me the rants about how YOU are being disused when it was You who decided to step into the PR thread and go berserk.

FordsTowel

If it's so good, and so witty, and so relevant, why hasn't it been picked yet?

Having gone and re-read what you've said, I really think you ought to lie down in a dark room and take the pills. Yeah, I ranted. Ranting is something I'm very good at, as it happens. Read 'A Deep Brown Movement' to experience the ranting of FM at its best. But I'm one of these people who have always believed that what a person says is more important than how they say it. It comes through having had a stammer the whole of my life, I suppose. Perhaps this is the reason I tend to write directly and pointedly, as my speech has been so scattergun and faltering in past days.

As for my reference to the Question in the Alpha entry, it was, as I have pointed out, the use of the reference to the Guide as a *starting point* for the article, not an end in itself, It was a literary device, a *hook* to snare the reader's interest. I did not however, go on to use deploy the equivalent of the fisherman's 'priest', the steel bar to beat the idea (and the reader's interest) to death afterwards.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on those two entries of mine you hold up as being substandard. I even wrote this about the Rubber Gloves entry not long after I wrote it: F66763?thread=4943071 . It was however Skankyrich's brilliant, cod-Public Information Film video which redeemed it totally and made it a bit of a laugh. As for the Holy Socks, I didn't even write this. I read it, chipped in about Theseus' Boat (some *proper* philosophy, mind you) and hence got credited. Little bits of fluff admittedly, but they succeeded on their own terms at being very fluffy, and seemed to amuse

Anyhow, I've given you my arguments as to why I didn't like that piece. Whether or not you stay is up to you: I will not be commenting on anything you write again, either negatively or even positively. I criticised your writing initially, not you personally. I think I have given you plenty of compelling arguments as to why I thought it should not be in the EG, as did several others who said basically the same things that I did. All of which fell on deaf ears.

I have also criticised other pieces in much the same spirit. I have often criticised myself, and the pieces published, but I didn't hold back. I accepted that my opinion was just that: a personal, albeit strongly-held view. The writers of those other pieces still got their stuff published and I was quite happy to see that happen. I've never had anything knocked back after I've submitted it, as it happens, but I dare say that the day will come when it does happen and I trust that I have enough backbone to deal with it. So, all I'd say to you is: either join the Order of Vertebrates, or write something that people might actually want to read.

Like I said, my offer to ignore you and your writing and to refrain from criticism is honest and open. I suggest you reciprocate by realising when you're onto a good thing and just letting this issue lie. Direct your energies to something anew, instead of flogging this dead horse to the consistency of catmeat.

Lol! A dark room and pills is exactly what I plan this evening! How did you know?! Seriously, I think I need a couple of aspirin tonight for my bum shoulder. Hey, thanks at the very least for copping to the rant thing. I actually respect direct speech. If you've ever noticed, there are others who come across as very cold and direct, as opposed to passionate and direct like you. Neither is generally thought to be the way to win friends and influence people, but I'm not here to judge folks on the wey they present themselves. I know what you mean about getting 'credit' for things you barely commented on. That's one reason why, on my PS, I chose to identify those entries that were entirely me, for better or worse. You can see from my UG entries, and those that didn't even make UG, that I'm not really about credit, popularity, or being in the EG all the time. Oh, and I write LOTS of fluff! For whatever reason, after having participated in several UQ threads on this debate (of which you have obviously not been a participant), I considered it a serious enough matter to go to the mat for. I certainly understand your feeling otherwise. I'd like to think I've gotten a pretty clear idea of why you didn't like the piece, always assuming that my personal filters didn't completely misrepresent what you wrote. I'm still not sure why the vehemence, but it's not necessary that I understand everything to respect one's right to a contrary opinion. However, I see that you're still of the opinion that nobody is interested in the matter, but haven't come to understand that this is just an opinion. I am not, at all, alone on the matter. Since you seem to have chosen not to believe me, I reluctantly offer a link to one of several brief conversations (read debates) I've had on the subject. The content is not important, but you might be interested in the length: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F131096?thread=501361 If you still think nobody else is interested, I can share my dark room and pills with you! FordsTowel PS: and, yes, catmeat is far too coarse, needs more pounding!

I'm not here to make friends. I have lots of friends, difficult as that may be to believe sometimes, but I'm here for different reasons. I think you'll find my vehemence came about through feeling that I was being misrepresented (again).

I used to care an awful lot about h2g2, then I stopped caring, now I have started again. I cared about it because it encouraged people to write who probably didn't think that they had it in them. People who had been marked down in English lessons by poor teachers. People like me as it happens.

I also cared because it got others to open their eyes to a world around them to which they probably had only given the most superficial glance in the past. The next time you look at a painting with lots of blue in it, spare me a thought, please.

I want to see this project thrive for those two reasons. I'd like to think that I could recommend every EG entry to a total stranger to h2g2 and hope it would get them to explore the site further, if not contribute to it in some way. That's my ultimate yardstick of reviewing. Belabouring the UQ is going to have exactly the opposite effect on a newcomer.

And I still think, despite what you say, this place is better off for having me around. I'm an OK - hell, this is NO time for false modesty - I'm a *bloody* good writer and I've done a hell of a lot for this place in contributing, reviewing and Scouting. Ultimately, whether this place survives is going to come down to the quality and relevance of the EG and its content. That is where I have made, and can continue to make, a real difference.

My last observation oin this issue is that The Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating. If your entry gets picked for the EG, then I will be wrong, you will be right, and I will have learned a lesson from it: probably that my vision for h2g2 and the reality are diverging. But if outcome is the opposite, what lesson do you think you'll take away from it?

Well, you won't have to worry about me sending you birthday cards, so you can rest easy on the 'friends' thing.

Yeah, you cared, you didn't care, you care again, who cares. Not really germaine to the conversation.

You see, you've again identified that the problem is in you. You want to be able to 'recommend every EG entry to a total stranger'. Well, that's not how it works, how it was meant to work, or how it should work. You like some, you dislike some. Your filtering is no better than mine would be, if I elected myself God of Hootoo.

Is this place better for having you around? Not for me to say. I have no opinion on the matter. But make no mistake, you've made it quite clear that you aren't doing anything for this place. You've been doing it all for yourself as this post makes abundantly clear. All your work is related to 'me, me, and more me'; Do I like it? Do I think it fits? Would it bring me back for another look?

I know we will never agree on the subject, but I don't care so much if this project thrives so much as I want to see that it holds something for everybody, not just the FM think-alikes. There's no way you could know that someone reading my entry could not be inspired to come back or join up. That's just your ego talking. Your 'Vision' is monocular, completely monoscopic; whereas mine is 3D and panoramic.

What lesson will I take away from not having my entry reach the EG? Simple: Sometimes you can't get others to open their eyes to a world around them to which they probably had only given the most superficial glance in the past.

FordsTowel

This post has been removed.

What non-aggression pact? Now you're sounding a bit bi-polar. I never said anything about feeling aggressive toward you. On the contrary, I said I have no opinion on whether the place is better off for having you around.

How did you read agression into that? Where did you see a tirade in what 'I' wrote? Wasn't it YOU who said you weren't looking to make friends?

Forget the entry. As you implied, what will be, will be.

I was just holding up a mirror to you, reflecting your own words and attitude, so that perhaps you could better understand your true self. So now, on top of having to see your ego exposed as super-inflated, and your general mindset as narcissistic, you're going to make threats? If you can't grow intellectually, I will take no responsibility for your petty, childish attempts at a vendetta.

So what is the 'chance' of which you speak. At least I've confined my remarks to this old thread where you might at least be assured of some level of privacy. Your tirade was in a public forum. Why is it, do you think, that you still see yourself as the victim here? Did I trash YOUR entry on absolutely personal grounds? No, I don't think so.

Perhaps you just need to grow up, and take this sight a little less seriously and a lot less personal.

Remember, this conversation was only incited by your breaking into a different private conversation between me and another researcher.

BTW: Non-aggression pacts, like debates, need clearly defined boundaries to be effective. I haven't seen any. And, for all your talk about being such a wonderful writer, aggression is spelled with two Gs.

FordsTowel

Why don't you ask a couple of your many friends to read this thread and tell you where I'm wrong.

FordsTowel

This post has been removed.

Can I just ask what you expect to achieve by all this, and why you are still persisting, FT? You see, if I'm really as intransigent, pig-headed and egocentric as you make out, I'm not exactly going to take any notice of your outpourings, am I? And why would I wanted to attack you through your entry? I hardly know you, and if you think I'm care enough about you to initiate a 'vendetta' against you, you certainly over-estimate your level of significance in my little world.

Like I said, FT, we'll see, shall we? Now, I am so *so* bored with this topic of controversy about nothing of any real importance that I am just going to ignore you completely and anything you write in future. I expect this thread to end now. Know when you're onto a good thing. If you don't and you persist, I shall treat it as harrassment and act accordingly.

@ R'man: I started off by criticising the material, not the person. It wasn't very good. I told him why it wasn't very good, as did several others. He didn't like that.

@RMan (again): yes, it was not very nice, what I said. So I yikesed it myself

I wondered whether the offending quote in post 12 would survive, but it's gone too now . . .

The Lord hath wielded his nine-bladed sword and great is the vengeance thereof.

Ezekiel 25:17.

Now *that* -- the whole chapter -- is yikesable.

And they are *still* stretching out the Lord's hand upon the Philistines.

Anybody who lives by ancient screeds is certifiable.

Sorry, back to your personal skirmish . . .

This thread made me think of think of Pulp Fiction, especially that bit where Jules 'lays [his] vengeance upon thee!'

Well, time has told. My entry is just being subbed, and his 'crappy little entry'* has shown no sign of being been picked yet. Nor is likely to be.

*a quote from one of my 'many friends'.