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

Hoovooloo, Check out 'The Evidence against Gravity and for Hoovooloo being the Messiah, my arse' at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F79682?thread=156488. Have a taste of your own medicine! Tsk! Spiff

I have unearthed documentary evidence relating to Hoovooloo's claim

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A671023

Worship him.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'Peer Review Sin Bin'.

Wow. Out of Peer Review and into the sin bin in less than 18 hours. Is this a record?

I'd like to apologise to everyone whose time has been wasted by Josh. In many ways it's *my* fault - I certainly blame myself. He is obviously only trying to spread his deep and sincere belief in me and my Dad.

H. (or should that be J.?)
The *proven* messiah.

Thanks, Hoovooloo, for blaming yourself. We all blame you too.

I'd still like to know exactly what it is that the Creationists believe. How can I shoot it down if I don't know what it is?

Ask those French guys who go to the Pyrenees every winter

Hey, this looks like PR proper... there's a copy of this thread at the PR Sin Bin.... Eds? Hello?

OOOOoooopppsss!

Please see my latest (only) journal entry on my page for a few of my thoughts about the whole thing.

Any comment would be welcome. I will reply to any criticism and/or praise.

Ste

I still don't understand why this article is not even being considered. What did I do wrong?

As an observer of the last two threads of your PR attempts and some of the first one, I would say that it is because you have been advised that this entry is not ready for the Edited Guide in it's current form. It's sometimes very difficult to understand why an entry that the author thinks is ready, is not considered ready by others.

You have been given lot of advice that you have neither taken, nor explained why you have not taken it. These researchers are very experienced, and if you are not prepared to take advantage of that experience, or even give them the courtesy of an answer, then it is going to be hard to help you understand.

To see what you did wrong READ the peer review thread. It tells you. That's the whole point of it.

Hi Josh!

I suspect that you haven't really grasped what Peer Review is all about. When you submit an article for recommendation to the Edited Guide, people read what you say and make comments about it, which an author is supposed to listen to and amend their entry as necessary. You haven't done that.

Not only that, but you have submitted the same entry four different times. This shows persistence, but not listening.

The other big difficulty is that entries are supposed to be factual. The weight of evidence appears to be against your interpretation of them. That may not be such a problem if you were not claiming to speak the truth. 'What creationists believe' may make an interesting article in itself as long as it does not purport to be what is generally accepted to be true. Debunking Darwin does little to add to the argument, except to get up people's noses.

I don't think that the author of any article deserves to be personally attacked however I can understand the frustration that your persistant refusal to listen to or take on board any of the comments which have been made to you has engendered.

I confess to being a little puzzled at why anyone could hold views such as you appear to hold. So if you do intend to persevere with trying to get an entry into the Edited Guide, why not just state what you believe, give some background on fundamentalist Christianity(numbers, origins, social background etc), compare and contrast it with accepted orthodoxy, give other information, for instance views on evil, what it takes to live a Christian life etc.

However, please don't try try to convert people. Realise that for some it's offensive. Make your entry a balanced one, if you can. Listen to people's comments and act to change your entry when comments by other researchers suggest you haven't got it right. Respect that your view is a biased one and respect the fundamental rights of others to hold different views.

In peace.

Nice comments, Zarquon's you-know-what

I too wondered whether this could be a case of not understanding the principles of PR.

Josh, do you realise that people will be disappointed and even 'offended' if you don't acknowledge what they have said in the threads. This does not necessarily mean making changes to your article. It *does* mean replying in the thread yourself - either defending your viewpoint, accepting someone else's or perhaps just saying that you haven't time to reply right now! The important thing is that you 'respond'.

Do you read the threads and then *not* reply? If so, how can you fail to 'understand' what problems exist with your piece? Various people made it crystal clear, initially (I think) in a friendly way, then in a more insistent way, and finally quite rudely. The reason for the rudeness, I believe, was that many found your 'persistence' and refusal to debate questions offensive.

You seem to be genuinely bemused about what has gone wrong. You shouldn't be. It's all there, as Zarquon says, in the thread. By the end it got pretty unpleasant, I feel. Various people tried to stick up for you (despite *not* agreeing with the contents of your article!) and got no thanks from you, nor any help. In fact there was no reaction from you whatever. The last straw was seeing you *repost* your unchanged piece with an open acknowledgement that you had no intention of listening to your 'peers'. PR is about give-and-take as much as anything. You *caused* the unpleasant atmosphere by not playing the game.

This site is pretty friendly, generally speaking. I'm sorry to have to say this, but I feel you are abusing that friendliness and even 'corrupting' it in some way.

If you like h2g2 then try to understand it better and act appropriately. You will get a better reaction.

Just in case you think no-one her is 'open-minded' enough to debate religious questions in a reasonable way, I would like to say that one of my *very* best friends is a devout Catholic and that we often 'agree to disagree' on some pretty fundamental questions. It doesn't stop us from debating things, from time to time, and it *certainly* doesn't stop us being friends.

This is not intended to be any kind of character assassination. It is intended as what we would call in the UK 'a word to the wise'. I hope you take it as such.

Spiff

Anyone care for a chuckle? http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F78168?thread=156554&post=1559417#p1559417 H.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review Sin Bin' to 'Evidence Against Evolution and For Creationism'.

Back to Entry - this became A675858 Discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution - Part I and A739947 Discrepancies in the Theory of Evolution - Part II

Damn! Someone in power is getting bored... They've gotten round to tidying up twelve year old conversation threads!

Who would do such a thing, eh?

<BB<