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

I've just dropped by to say thank you for livening thngs up a bit. Probably one of the most interesting debuts in the history of guide - many thanks to all 20,000+ of you. Don't get depressed by the responses from some people - Peta's advice is always sound. Don't judge all ACE's by the responses of a vocal minority.
I found the parts of your metasite which I visited some of the most interesting stuff I've read for a while - disturbing but interesting.

Take it easy
Androyd ACE

In Cabaret, à cabaret, to cabaret...

Only thing... it feels more like a charade than a cabaret.

Are you sure you meant 'debut', and not 'débacle'?

Glad (we guess...) that you're finding the MetaSite interesting. Yah, it's disturbing stuff. If you aren't used to it, take it easy and don't give yourself nightmares, all right? Godforbid anyone should be 'used to it', but really, before our explosive arrival at h2g2, nearly all the visitors to our site/s were survivors and/or partners. To laypeople, who do not have a really substantive grasp of the ontological reality of Evil, it can be horribly distressing.

It's actually one of the best indicators of whether someone is a survivor, and/or mp: how do they react? If mp is immediately intuitive, and obvious, that is highly suggestive of the possibility of mp in the reader. If the poetry evokes either extreme rage or extreme blandness, it was probably triggering. People who have had 'normal' lives *should* have trouble believing it, and find it all horrifying, and not quite be able to take it in. Either way, it's not very pretty.

The good news is that we lived to see middle age, and happiness (if not much functionality beyond the cognitive and emotional levels). We plan to live enough longer to make up for all the years we lost and then some !

Assuming a few select people don't succeed in making chips of our brain (not for lack of trying on their part, so much as from sheer self-control on ours), we'll probably be around here a while. This is still pending. There are some public retractions and apologies we'd *like* to see, though we aren't counting on it. There are some we are going to insist upon. Ones have ones' dignity, after all .

Thank you for dropping in and saying hullo. Nice to meetcha.

Arpeggio, peeking diffidently round the corner to see if it's safe for LeKZ

How refreshing to meet someone who recognises a good quote when they see it or is it just a sign of middle-age . Yours was most assuredly a 'debut' and it sure got you noticed!!!

Mark Moxon is a sef-confessed 'bit of a touchy old sod' but whilst he can be extremely spikey he has remained consistent in his dedication to make this thing work and completely committed to openness about what h2g2 is trying to achieve, allowing the maximum possible input from and freedom for researchers. Under BBC rules there is less freedom than is desireable but more than would have existed if the site had folded. They are still feeling their way with the BBC and the new rules so are tending to err on the side of caution.
People are also very protective of Mark (not that he needs it particularly) because they respect what he has achieved and is managing to achieve in keeping this thing going against all the odds.

You seem to have entered the site, how can I put this, with all the grace and finesse of a bull taking a bow in a china shop, so please try to understand that the owners of all that lovely porcelain have gotten a tad upset and a trifle nervous.

I'm sure just about all of you will find nooks and crannies in this thing where you will feel comfortable and (dare I say it?)welcomed. Just take some time to explore - if you feel like having a rant about someone or something feel free to come on over to my page and rant away at me- I promise I won't take offence. Nothing in cyberspace compares to stuff I deal with in reality so feel free to let rip if you need to. I also left an email address on your guestbook. Use it if you want.

androyd

Hey Androyd,

This is Auntie. Bull, china-shop, yeah? It was crappy 1960s kitch. Some of it, not most, but definitely some, *needed* smashing. And that is no bull. Iconoclasts don't tend to make friends early in their acquaintance, except maybe with other iconoclasts.

So? Most of my best friends are iconoclasts. Only *some* of my best friends are White people.

And, if you're gonna smash crockery, do it really LOUD, and get a Primal Scream experience out of the process. You'd think most of these characters here would have noticed the difference between the *real* Royal Doulton and the Woolworth's imitation... We didn't mess up any of the good stuff. Throwing Woolworth's crockery is good for the soul.

Then again, even though Arpeggio is British, personally, and actually a little on the delicate side of nice, the rest of us are from all over. Me, I'm from Queens, NY, of course. The N'Yawkas here do not have a lot of patience with the way Brits harrumph and puff and errm their way through life, understating this, and omitting that, except when they lose all impulse control, and go from 0 to VIOLENT in under 15 seconds, and post ill advised stuff they later want to retract... DUH, this is an archive. Everything you say, no matter how drunk you were at the time, is being saved by h2g2 FOREVER. How much genius does it take to think before you put something in writing? OYY.

So, they're protective of Mark. That's very sweet, but those of us who are not twentysomething are are leetle tired of being scolded and infantilised by the twentysomethings. We could be their MOM and they're talking to us HOW? Oy again.

Ranting, raving, and having hysterics. You probably saw the post at your space by the time you see this. It's ok, Mikey the Humming Mouse to the rescue.

I gotta have a cigarette, and that is no bull either.

Auntie 'do you want half a set of plates? This half is a little bigger than the other half... they didn't all crack evenly' for LeKZ

Cabaret - saw it first time age 11. It made a big impression.

Hey, Auntie!
Doesn't it make sense to stay away from your computer when drunk?
After all, you stay away from your car, don't you?
H2G2 is an archive.
You cannot post a rant, then ask the editors to delete it later.
Learn that while you are sober.

Just by the way.
We are not all twenty-somethings...

Welcome. I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to drop by before all the craziness, but I am very happy to get to have a chance to meet you.

I agree with Androyd in terms of advice. Listen to what the italics say - and indeed what most researchers say - but take everything with a grain of salt.

When I first joined I got a nasty note from a researcher named Skeleton about how I was greeting other new researchers. His post had some valid points, but was worded in such a way that it came across as very negative. We exchanged what could euphemistically be refered to as "words". (This was long before the Beeb took over H2G2, so the terms and conditions were not quite as stringent.) After giving both of us time to cool down, I went back and typed to him again. We actually became friends, although he still delighted in figuring out how to push people's buttons. (Many of the older researchers remember Skeleton/Festival - some fondly, some not so fondly.)

Ultimately, I suppose that what I am trying to say is two-fold: 1) Everyone - you, me, the fencepost, etc - deserves a second chance and 2) Good and bad are part of everything; the important thing is that you go seeking the former rather than the latter.

I hope that this ramble down amnesia lane has helped in some way. I really would hate to see anyone leave H2G2 over this. After all, we're a community.

G7

Right Androyd.

We don't actually drink, ever. Allergic to alcohol or fermentation or something, but imbibing intoxicating beverages is likely to put us in hospital at least two thirds of the time. They buy really, really expensive (and safe) champagne for special occasions once every couple of years... so we do not have this problem.

WE did not ask the Eds to take the ill-advised and extremely nasty thing we wrote (while stone cold sober, and after thinking about it offline for several hours) away and hide until we were told by same that it was in violation of House Rules, which we had carefully avoided doing, while being intentionally nasty, to avoid its removal. We don't insult people by accident. We lose our temper, we think about how to get even. We are amazingly good at nasty when we've been abused, trashed, taken to the cleaners, threatened, hurt, and generally kicked around like we were a child again.

That particular nasty was crafted, while sober, for maximum impact. By me, as it happens, because protecting us from marauding psychohazards is my job. If it is too too, as it seemed from the Eds response, and to others of us, then they are free to take it down. If they don't take it down, I'll take the cons and not sign Arpeggio's name to them. WE are not upset by the taking of cons for our actions, when we do something stupid or ill-advised. We are human, and fallible, and actions have consequences. Can you see where it is a little confusing to be called on something by the Italics, reminded of the House Rules, told to cooperate with same, told post is in violation, and have it left up?

We do not drink, let alone drink and post to bbs, or drink and drive. We don't drive with a migraine, either. We do not know this about other persons here. We'd like to mitigate some of the outrageous, thoughtless repetetitions of the same vitriolic outbursts by believing the posters were drunk at the time. Otherwise, they do not have an excuse, and ex post facto apologies cut no ice.

I know I said that to you, before you said it back to me, presumably with reference to my own piece of vituperation which came back to haunt, so there it is. So we will deal with the cons as they come in.

Your point was what, exactly? If I sound like a bxtch, it is only because I am one. I know not everyone is twentysomething. Mostly, the older people either bite their tongues, or try to reason with people, or ultimately and after extreme pressure has been applied, lose their tempers *consciously*. I am not sure that is 'better' than foaming at the mouth for no good reason unconsciously, but it does not happen anything like as frequently.

Auntie, defending our sanity, which is my job
on behalf of herself and other Protectors of LeKZ

Don't pixx me off, because I am smarter, meaner, and more dangerous than you. When I am pixxed off, you get hurt. All I get is even. Fortunately for everyone, it takes a LOT of cumulative wreckage to get my attention, let alone pixx me off. ~ Auntie's personal approach to the world at large.

It may not be nice, or attractive, or desireable. It is here.

G7~

Thank you for your input. As we do not, in fact, let our temper get out of control easily, or often -- and are keeping it on an even tigher leash than before -- we don't forsee a repetition of *our* striking back in the future. The exceptions would be:

-People who don't learn from their mistakes and do the same insulting/outrageous thing in the same post in which they apologise for the last time they did it.

-Un-called-for psychohazardous vituperation, that we did not bring on ourself in *any* way.

-Liars and lies: to us; about us; to anyone about us; to anyone about people we care about; to anyone when we know the truth.

We are somewhat fanatical in our feelings against lying. We will go find and pull the Truth out of the archive and throw it at people who lie, and they need to know this about us. I think I should probably post this at our 'space'. We suffer fools, even gladly, if we think they would prefer not to be fools. We suffer abusive/insulting, not gladly, but rather with tongue bitten to shreds. We do not, and will never suffer a liar. Everyone has their limits and that is one of ours.

Sound even slightly reasonable?

It is because we listened to the Italics that we asked to have our striking back against someone who had managed to pull off all three of the above in the same post, for the second time in under a week, removed. If the Italics has not said anything, we'd have taken the other cons in due course.

Since they did, and were rather explicit about the post being a violation, what were we supposed to think? We love listening to advice, so long as it isn't self-contradictory, at which point it starts to make us confused, rather than helping.

So we've asked for clarification, and so long as that too is not all self-contradictory, we'll follow the Rules to the best of our ability, which is probably pretty close to 100%. Unwritten, generally 'assumed' rules, we do not assume any reponsibility for not knowing unless someone tells us, and not everyone agrees what they are. If we get mixed messages, we'll go with whatever is closest to our temperament, which is what everyone else does.

Hope that makes sense, whether or not it is what you would have preferred me to say.

Auntie, protecting LeKZ

That makes perfect sense, Auntie. Thank you for taking the time to explain your phlosophy to me.

Those three exceptions sound good to me. Hopefully, they are things that you will not run into too much here. I am sorry that you have seen enough of them already to cause such a negative reaction. This is not usual behaviour. I cannot - and will not - make excuses for other researchers' behaviour; all I can say is that you will not have to worry about such from me. If I ever do say or do something inadvertantly that either gives you a bad reaction or that you question for whatever reason, please bring it to my attention. I am, after all, only human and do ocassionally make mistakes.

Your search for the truth seems like a noble quest to me, albeit a difficult one. I do hope that you find it. I try to be truthful in all things, although I know that it is nearly impossible in today's society to do so all the time. I like to think that the truths I speak far outweigh the lies. Hopefully this will live up to your standards.

I believe that the italics left your message up because they felt this would be the best course of action. It does seem a bit contradictory, however it is your right to express your opinions and they try not to "hide" or remove anything unless they absolutely have to. My feelings on the matter would be that their comments - and I have not read them yet, so this may or may not be the case - were made in the hopes of calming you down or to keep you from saying anything that you might regret more. If they did not have this effect, I am very sorry. I've noticed that they - like most folk - try to put up warnings long before things escalate too far. They don't like having to bar researchers any more than anyone else so they try to avoid it whenever possible. If I've misread the situation, then I am sorry; however, these are my observations after being part of the Guide for a year and a half.

And just so you know, I would prefer that you say what you feel - whether I agree with the sentiment or not. I find that this is very important in any friendship and I would like very much to be your friend.

Please let me know if this is helping at all. If I am making you upset or uncomfortable in any way, I'll back off. Otherwise, I'd like to help you become comfortable here. After all, it is one of my favorite places on the Web.

G7

Thank you so much G7,

We can always use more friends!

Basically, whether we say it softly (typical), loudly (it happens), stridently (more often), or nastily (very rare), we say what we think.

That is probably a reaction formation against the elaborate tapestry of lies that was part of our very abusive childhood. We live by a pretty rigorous code of ethics and one of the imperatives is no lying, and do not suffer a liar. We are one of the worst (meaning not good at it) liars in the world, ourself. If we are hurt, sad, angry, whatever, we don't hide it, on principle. If we attempt social lies, they are so unconvincing, why do it? We make social noises, but unless Mabel asks us directly, what we think of her hideous new hat, we'll avoid the subject altogether.

If she asks, directly, we'll answer with some generality about 'de gustibus non disputandum est' (translation from the Latin, for Nice Moderator: of tastes, there is no discussion), or 'I'm happy you have something you like'. It is obviously evasive. If pressed: 'Well, it's not *my* taste'.

Warned the mother, at about 13, 'Never ask a question unless you are sure you want to know the answer, because I will not lie'. That sure kept her out of our business!

Yes, 'friend' sounds good. Thank you G7.

Arpeggio, peeking around the corner to see if it is safe...
for LeKZ

Anrdoyd~

Upon re-reading your note: Doesn't it make sense to stay away from your computer when drunk?
After all, you stay away from your car, don't you?
H2G2 is an archive.
You cannot post a rant, then ask the editors to delete it later.
Learn that while you are sober.

I can see how you could have misread what I said, to understand it to mean 'WE were really drunk'. We have told other people to remember, this is a permanent archive.

Please see below for sentence parsing, because we did not mean to say that, we do not drink, and we do not want you or anyone else to believe, say, think, or gawdferbid suggest to anyone that we do.

It's the lying thing again.

See below for cont...

cont...

The N'Yawkas here do not have a lot of patience with the way Brits harrumph and puff and errm their way through life, understating this, and omitting that, except when they lose all impulse control, and go from 0 to VIOLENT in under 15 seconds, and post ill advised stuff they later want to retract... DUH, this is an archive. Everything you say, no matter how drunk you were at the time, is being saved by h2g2 FOREVER. How much genius does it take to think before you put something in writing? OYY.

Actually, the pronoun reference is perfectly clear:

N'Yawkas do not have a lot of patience with Brits.
because...
Brits harrumph, etc, except when they lose all impulse control... and post...to retract.
Full stop.
This is an archive.
Full stop again.
Everything you (anyone) says, no matter how drunk (s/he) was at the time... h2g2 FOREVER.
Full stop summore.
How much genius... think before... put... in writing?
Rhetorical question.

Now that I've parsed it, I changed my mind. It was not that unclear after all.

Learn to read before you post things that are not true. That is a direct reply to your statement 'Learn this while you are sober'.

Don't jump to conclusions when you didn't read the post carefully in the first place would be another tit-for-tat suggestion. If you don't understand, especially, *ask* rather than jumping to conclusions. DUH.

Irritably,

Auntie, who does not LIKE conclusion-jumpers, and who will be really, really angry with you, if anyone else comes out with a 'you were drunk' remark, because it will have been YOU who suggested the idea.

I'm glad to hear that you are happy to be friends. I think that everyone can always use more friends.

I have the same problem with social lies for the most part. I became very adept at them at a young age, but have been working to break myself out of that rut since I left high school. I'd much rather be honest with someone than have them think something that is not true. I do - and it sounds as if you do as well - always try to find something positive to say to balance the negative. (Using your example - The colour is stunning, Mabel, but I don't think that I could pull that style off.) I've noticed that folks tend to respond well to that kind of answer. (Mabel would probably search out another hat style in the same colour. ) That way, I'm telling the absolute truth couched in such a way that they don't ralize it.

I'm sorry that you had such a horrible childhood. No one should be forced to endure any abuse as a child. I have to tell you that I am very impressed with your strength. My parents both work with battered spouse shelters and have for years. Much of my time in high school was spent helping out. The fact that you could pull through anything as painful as I witnessed those children go through as well as you have impresses me no end.

Whenever I ask a question of you, I will be ready for the truth. And you can rest assured that you will get the same from me. This should make the Guide a happier place for both of us.

G7

My apologies, Androyd.

Posts 7, 11, and 12 were meant to be directed to:
St.Seven of Nine ACE{test your perfection@A572267}[(1x52)-2-8]x1=42!,
self defined 'Patron Saint of Empathy'.

I didn't look at the name of the poster, and jumped to the false conclusion that said person was you... though I confess I was a tad surprised by 'your' tone.

I would have been much less warm and cuddly about the issue, if I had not thought the posts came from you, though, so Patron Saint got off easy.

Auntie, who will remember to always read the fine print.

Aw shucks Y'all and I thought I was being falsely accused and ranted at...then you went and noticed and apologised....one thing I will take you up on is this: this site is a vehicle for collaborative writing, often for people's first steps at writing in a public place so yes there is going to be some 'Royal Doulton' and a lot more less expensive china around, my point is if you break it all then don't get upset/surprised/confused when others get wound up at your wanton destruction. Now I guess some of you know this , some of you don't care, some of you revel in it etc. etc. I know that you have managed to comprehensively wind up a lot of people in a very short space of time and you are tending to reap the reward of that in the way people post to you....I think what I find most interesting is when mention is made of your 'inconsistency' as if 20000+ personalities were likely to be consistent.
Just remember that there are some writing 'toddlers' on this site of whatever age, if you go around knocking them over and putting them off writing and attempting to express their own creativity what does that exactly contribute to the liberation of the world? That smacks more of someone working for the clampdown.

* Androyd*

Hey there! Very true that there are people who have trouble taking criticism - constructive or otherwise. And we definitely should try to encourage them in their efforts so that they are able to improve and continue to grow. As I posted earlier, it seems to me that if you can find one nice thing to say for each bad thing, you get a pretty even balance. Wouldn't you agree?

G7

Arpeggio:
"Everything you say, no matter how drunk you were at the time, is being saved by h2g2 FOREVER."
Those are YOUR words.
I did not accuse you of being a drunk.
You said it yourself.
If I misread your post then I apologize.
You asked Peta to remove the posts you regretted posting.
Then you got annoyed at her because she did not comply.
This is not the way to behave on h2g2.
You are making more enemies than friends, with your behaviour.
If anyone else in this thread thinks I jumped to the wrong conclusion about your "Everything you say, no matter how drunk you were at the time, is being saved by h2g2 FOREVER" quote, then please tell me and I will apologize unreservedly.

G7,

Re: your last paragraph, you got that right!

Auntie or Sara or one of us...

In real life my work is intimately involved in getting the best out of people from 3 to 53! Personally I find one negative remark only if absolutely essential to as many positive remarks as possible to get individuals giving of their best...but that's real life and this is cyberspace so what the hell!!!

LeKZ you are endlessly fascinating and thought-provoking, well provoking anyway....Is it possible to get to speak to any one of you in particular if we ask nicely or do we just have to take pot luck?

Those are my words. Correct. I was referring to 'you', meaning any person. If I had been referring to me/us, I would have said me/us.

Peta told me/us that the post violated House Rules. It was not removed. These are what are called 'Mixed Signals'. I did not think the post was, in fact, in violation. If Peta said so, I assumed she was correct, and expected her to act on her position.

I became annoyed because I did not understand what I was being told, because it was self-contradictory. Since you are so 'empathic', you ought to be able to work that one out. I do something, which does not violate the House Rules, regardless of how terrific an idea it maybe was not. I am told it *did* violate them. Per House Rules, it should be gone. It is not gone. *I* ask for it to be removed, and it is 'hidden'. This morning, Peta puts it back. She is the one who said it was a violation in the first place. I cannot comply with rules that are stated in a way as to make them impossible to comprehend.



Yes, please, anyone, read my note and explain to this person that I am indeed owed an apology. I did not say I/we were drunk, anywhere, because it is not true. I did not imply it. Someone who inferred it and accused us of what we would consider revolting behaviour (why I brought it up in the first place), is now claiming not to have misunderstood, even *after* I parsed the paragraph.

Reading comprehension is a Good Thing. Being sure one is not swallowing one's leg, to the hip, before posting anything insulting is likewise a Good Thing. You misread the entire thread under 'This is an outrage', if you *missed* that it was Peta who called the note a violation in the first place.

You said: You are making more enemies than friends, with your behaviour.
This is what, fact? Opinion? Threat? Insult? Coming from an ACE it is inappropriate at best, even if it were Gospel, which it is not.

Auntie protecting LeKZ from the illiterati mundi