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

By golly, I must be a fool. But I won't change.

Answer to your arguments before you say them:

Yes it is scientific. There is an underlying opinion here, but I have proven facts as evidence.

It's long, but there's really nothing I can remove. I think this ought to be included in the edited guide even though it is awfully long.

True, this author is somewhat biased, but judging from the biased articles about evolution, I think it would add some nice balance.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A655805

This post has been removed.

Before anyone else wastes any time or energy trying to get through to the author of this garbage, please check this out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A670213

My own entry, entitled "Creationism - The Scientific Basis, My Arse", which pretty comprehensively destroyed this entry the last time the author put it in. If you really want to spend energy on the demonstrably futile task of pointing out why Josh is writing tripe, you might like to check the above link to make sure you aren't repeating what he's already been told. Not that it would help telling him anything new of course...

H.

Josh, I hope you have not been too insulted by all the rudeness you have been subjected to here in Peer Review. My own comments to you may have seemed rather rude, too. If they were, I apologise. I think that the world is big enough for different people to have different beliefs. I don't think you have to believe everything that has been thrown at you in the last week any more than I have to believe what you have written. But I would be very interested to hear what your view is on Creationism rather than your arguments against Evolution. Do you believe that God made the world and everything in it all the one time in recent history? Do you believe that the world was made many billions of years ago and the individual species were created at different times in the history of the world. How was this done, by creating two and letting them produce the rest? Can you give us some details of what you believe.

I don't know much about Evolutionary Theory myself. Just enough to convince me it is the truth. I certainly can't judge between what you say and what other people here say, because they seem to be directly contradictory. How can we reconcile these two opposing views?

Not nearly long enough. No comments on the text. I am not qualified to make comments on such a topic - I'm a medic, not a biologist (to paraphrase Bones)!

I will say this though. And this is to *all* peers.

This entry has been submitted to PR several times with a great deal of comment from others, which has not been encorporated by the author. Although it has been agreed by many that the writing style is fine, the content is not edited guide material.

That was in the first submission. Since then, the entry has been re-submitted without incorporating advice on significant shortcomings in what could potentially be a good argument, strengthened by further establishment of, and well-sustanciated facts.

As the author has not chosen to do this (and he is perfectly within his right to do so), then we reach the point of stagnation which is the third submission to PR.

If the author does not wish to make changes, then let it go. As it stands, this third attempt still isn't edited guide standard, and is unlikely to be picked. As it is also unlikely that the author will make changes to satisfy my distinguished peers, then you are well advised to let it lie.

Advice has been given, good points have been made. If the author will not change the text, then as it is not edited guide material, it will not get picked.

However, there are plenty of other entries with lots of potential just waiting for your voices, disinguished peers - why not go to them?

In the meantime, let this lie. Peers - you have done all you humanly can, and then some. You can be commended for that



Nope, still not long enough.

Stay ,
WD (unsubscribing as quickly as she posted.)

Hi distinguished peers,

WD posted a reply whilst I was writing the following, but I guess my comments are a bit different. My recommendation, however, is the same. I feel this thread is unlikely to produce positive results.


Hi Josh

last time you reposted this to PR I started by saying (I intended it as a compliment ) how brave you were. This time I feel you are misguided.

Did you read the thread last time round? I'm convinced you did, and yet you rarely replied to what people were saying.

"I won't change." Says it all really. What do you think PR is all about?

Have you understood what this 'guide' is all about? I can't claim to be an authority, but my understanding is that one of the main things, embodied by PR, is consensus. This does not mean that *everyone* has to agree, but it does mean that writers listen to their peers and either defend their writings or accept valid criticism. That, in any case, seems to be what PR is about.

Do you realise that you are (indirectly but seemingly determinedly) causing unpleasantness? People have tried to suggest improvements, make it clear that your piece has merits (basically in terms of style, rather than content) and try to help you to adapt to your environment (is that 'evolution'?). You have not reacted. You have not even *replied* most of the time. And yet here it is - back again. I admit that I have not reread it. I don't think it likely that you have taken into account *anything* that others have said.

You have managed to produce a rather negative atmosphere by going against what seem to me to be some fundamental principles of h2g2. You have not debated criticisms which come from more than one researcher. You have *inspired* people to ridicule (in rather fine style) what you have *created*. Others who did not *like* your entry have defended you on the grounds that you are taking a battering, but you have never thanked them or tried to intervene in any way. Why are you acting this way?

I'm afraid I fear that you are acting in a blinkered way. Why is there so little feedback from you, except in the form of statements?

I tried to add a lighter note into the last thread when I saw that it was going to end in disaster. That attempt was totally unsuccessful (and *you* never acknowledged that I had said anything to you! ) and actually caused further unpleasantness, as far as I could see. I am sorry for that.

The only positive note, as far as I am concerned, is that fact that the whole debate, as someone else has said, has thrown up some fascinating insights into the subject. I have learnt all kinds of things, quite apart from the lessons in human interaction gleaned from the various postings. Unfortunately, none of what I see as the positive aspect of this debate has come from you. You created the controversy, but none of the positive stuff has come from you.

Some have said that *you* have been personally mocked. I don't agree. Actually, I think you are taking the p**s by ignoring the whole thread in PR and then reposting the moment it disappears. You don't seem to have any respect for you *peers*.

I was going to add something onto the end of the previous thread to say that I thought it was a shame how it had worked out. Now, I wonder whether I really feel that way. In any case, I was genuinely sorry to see this back in PR and I hope you can understand why.

Spiff

Hi folks,

As a long standing member of this whole debate it saddens me that it has come down to this. Josh does not respond to criticism nor praise. I'm afraid he is blinkered. Is Oklahoma one of those states that was forced to teach creation alongside evolution? I don't agree with WD that we should all unsubscribe and leave it, basically because I wish Josh would engage us.

I feel that Josh has insulted us too many times now for people just to let him off. That's why Hoovooloo's beautiful shredding of the article happened. May I remind people that Josh reignited the original AskH2G2 thread by saying:

"I'd be interested in hearing some of the evidence that apparently exists for evolution. Do you believe it because people that you feel are more intelligent than you tell you to?" (post 302).

Since that inauspicious and frankly offensive start he has insulted science, the h2g2 PR process and everyone who has asked him a question or made a comment by refusing to answer. Most of all he has insulted our intelligence.

Stick this in the sin bin and leave it there.



Ste

considering the fact that he won't even fix spelling mistakes which affect the meaning, I would suggest that not only is this entry sin binned, but that the editors point out to him by email that nothing from him against evolution will be accepted unless it is considerably better researched than this.

PS nice entry hoovooloo, have you considered pointing the post at it?

... and the new question is...

So how many times will this get reposted to PR before it gets considered spam?

I'd like to point out to WD and others that this is in fact not the third but the FOURTH time that this entry has been posted in Peer Review. The delay between its removal last time and posting this time was less than five hours. No changes *at all* to the text were made in those five hours.

I'd propose that this FOURTH submission of the same junk to PR constitutes spam and should, if there is to be any kind of pretense at applying the rules of this site consistently by the Editors, earn Josh an Official Warning, at least. He is deliberately interfering with the operation of one of the most important conversation forums on the site.

I did make these points in posting three, but I got a bit ratty for reasons I think people can understand - which is why it's currently hidden.

H.
Hoping the Editors will take steps to stop this rubbish cluttering up PR any further.

I've asked them for a few words

I was trying to moderate... But now it has gotten me too.

The author has openly admitted he is biased and that he won't change. I've suggested many times for him to merely change the title and get the 'scientific basis' out of it. If the author renamed the entry to 'What creationists believe' it would have been (partly) OK, but he doesn't seem to bother about comments.

He's a troll. This IS spam.

An official fore-shot would seem necessary.

HELL

This is a real shame. A good examination of the Evolution/Creationism debate would be an interesting and valid addition to the Guide.

It doesn't reflect well on Josh's ethics or his viewpoint that he has chosen to behave in this way.

I second the proposal to move this to the sin-bin, and I support the call for Josh to be formally warned.

Geoff Taylor

'This is a real shame. A good examination of the Evolution/Creationism debate would be an interesting and valid addition to the Guide.'

Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Shame this is not it.

Forth? Arse - sorry, at 1 am and slightly , counting isn't one of my strengths .

Well, I'm going handbag shopping today, so I'm very happy



Nope, still not long enough

Stay ,
WD (sorry for returning, but I'll leave now - I promise )

I came across Josh in another forum, where he also successfully demonstrated a poor grasp of science and an inability to accept criticism and/or instruction from others. As far as I can tell he is kid and still at college.

I suspect that this article has received enough "critical analysis".

Any Scout or ACE blind enough to actually attempt to do anything with this article for the Edited Guide (other than file it under imaginative fiction, superstition or 'new age' theories) will thoroughly deserve the resulting derisory comments they would undoubtedly receive from the rest of the community.

As an aside to Josh, I suspect that this persistent inability to engage in debate and to accept the validity of an opposing argument, will severely reduce your chances of making the Edited Guide.

Madent

Josh, May I suggest that if you wish to continue pushing this entry, you request that this thread be removed from Peer Review and open up another in the Community Soapbox, the ideal location for researchers wanting to debate opinions.

Whisky (Scout)

(no point suggesting Josh engages in debate, posting one here makes clear he isn't interested in anyone else's opinion)

I'd now like to present an argument at least as scientifically valid as Josh's. This posting will demonstrate "scientifically" (Josh's definition) and will present "evidence" (again, by Josh's definition), that conclusively proves that I am the incarnation of the Son of God and therefore that the Second Coming is upon us.

The main argument against my being the Son of God is, as I see it, the theory of gravity. However, although many people seem to believe in it for reasons of their own, the theory of gravity is in fact doubted by many reputable charlata- er, I mean, scientists. The evidence against gravity is everywhere, but the anti-religious scientific establishment fails to acknowledge it. The following incontrovertible evidence supports my theory, so don't bother contradicting me because I'm a fool and I won't change.

Point 1. Birds. They can fly, can't they? Obviously the theory of gravity is nonsense, since many birds defy it every day. I must therefore be the Son of God.

Point 2. Balloons. Every single person on the entire planet has at some stage owned a helium filled balloon. Obviously these would not work if gravity were true. Since gravity is demonstrably false, the only other possible explanation is that I am Jesus, returned in glory.

Point 3. The moon. If gravity were in fact true, the moon would crash into the earth, killing everything. Obviously it doesn't do that, because I, the one true messiah, prevent it from doing so by the power of my love for all of mankind.

Point 4. Aeroplanes. Aha! So-called scientists, explain that! I've got you there, haven't I? Don't be giving me any of that gravity nonsense when you can get a jumbo jet off the ground...

Point 5. Heaven. How could we possibly ascend to heaven and the kingdom of my Father if gravity were true? It must therefore be false, which means logically (Josh logic, obviously...) that I am a member of the holy trinity. QED.

Conclusion: why do people doubt that I am the messiah? I've presented lots and lots of Josh-the-Genius-style "evidence" right here supporting my claim. Who do people who think that I am the messiah get called idiots? I don't know. Perhaps you can tell me. I'll never know if you do, because I don't listen. But a proper balanced debate on whether I am the saviour or whether in fact gravity exists (even though it obviously doesn't) is absolutely necessary for the Guide, and I'm not going to take any notice of anyone who says anything at all, much less anyone who says anything contradictory. For that is the way of "science", as they seem to allow people to teach it in Oklahoma.

H.

Kid or not, paraphrasing Researcher Tonsil's Revenge, when he set out to write this entry and to submit it for PR he was agreeing to be judged on the same standards as all the others.

His stubborn behaviour is strarting to add to his scientifically flawed entry.

His constant re-posting the same entry to the PR can be considered spamming.

HELL