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

Someone is clearly trying to keep me quiet. What is it I'm saying which it's so unpleasant to read that someone keeps yikesing my posts?

Abuse of the complaints system is not a valid method of discourse.

H.

Thankyou Willem. I'd add that when people are reduced to mocking each other's spelling it does them no credit. And makes me jumpy since my own spelling is at times appalling.

>What would you think of me if I say to you, I've also had an >excellent upbringing, and perhaps am genetically better endowed to >be able to figure things out than the majority of other people?

Is that one of those questions you don't want answered (I don't know what they're called- rhetorical perhaps?)? If it's not, then my answer would be annoyance. I wouldn't be offended as such, but depending on where you said it I would have a job not to see it as an insult of sorts, allbeit an inadvertant one.

And Clay_toy, you're right, there are a lot of 'intelligent fellows' here- you may not have been the first to have called them that. The problem is they're all disagreeing.

"Disagreeing" implies listening to the other side, considering their arguments, and providing an opposing view to their points.

That's not what's happening. I've read what Barton's said, thought about it, and asked to justify some of the more ludicrous parts.

Response? It's here for all to see.

H.

Thank you Willem, for what you are trying to do, and for being the lovely person you are.
Please forgive the hasty words. I'm afraid I react very strongly when faced with injustice.

However I stand by everything I said to Barton.
He did not "only acknowledge it". He wrote in an extremely arrogant and insulting manner and many of the people that disagree with his point of view have minds as capable, and have had educations and upbringings as "good" as his.

They would agree with you, as do I:

"I think it would be true ... I was also born with a good mind. That does not make me better than other people."

I have seen several examples of Barton trying to force his opinion down other people's throats on the grounds that he knows better.
It is extremely annoying when someone like that starts talking through his hat. Makes one wonder about his motives.

Logic is indeed tricky for "most" people. Ordinarily I would not have expected an untrained mind to be capable of applying it but Barton made such high claims for himself that I gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Perhaps I was wrong, in which case I apologise to him wholeheartedly. It isn't at all kind to engage in a battle of wits with someone who is only half-armed, although their having claimed otherwise could be seen as constituting mitigating circumstances.

I'm sorry. Arrogance and injustice both make me so angry.
Next time this thread comes to the top of my space I'm just going to ignore it.

Dastardly, what about *this*: suppose I said that I am genetically better endowed than average for *painting*. Would that be considered insulting?

"Intelligent fellows" always disagree Dastardly. It's a consequence of the way they're brought up.
All their lives they have been fêted for their superiority, educated in elite establishments and pitted against each other. They can't bear to be seen not to be the best, no matter who or what they have to trample in the process.

It's the fault of the Western educational system.

They deserve your pity.
A high IQ is a terrible handicap.

(Actually I'd better amend that, or this post will be yikesed...

WE deserve your pity. There. Now no-one can accuse me of being anti-elitist. )

Reminder: Barton isn't disagreeing with anyone. He's just doing what Ford Prefect used to wonder about: stating and restating the very very obvious. He's clearly worried that if he doesn't stop talking, his brain might start working. Don't worry Barton - on the available evidence, there's not much danger of that.

"Disagreeing" implies engaging in an argument. Barton is NOT engaged in any discussion here, he's just talking.

H.

I can't let this rest, Barton,
"At the time of Mourning Becomes Electra, LeKZ was very openly present on h2g2. I believe they notified the editors themselves and begged forbearance."

You might believe that she notified the editors herself. She was online out of office hours, and Peta and Mark and Sam were out of the office for that period as they were all on annual leave. While I am not suggesting that the timing was deliberate on anyone's part, it is not true that the editors heard about it from her.
Before anyone starts shouting about me having confidential information I shouldn't have, I know that because the italic I informed heard it first from me.

Maybe not important atm, but Barton, you can be so self righteous, I feel that I have to point out where you are mistaken.

And no one, absolutely no one will be able to convince me that LeKZ came back for one reason only as Silent Lucidity, when she was posting to so many conversations, and trying to make friends for herself. Or that she would not have stayed either time if she was allowed to.

I would like to present my qualifications for posting to forums:-

Genetic heritage - the *ultimate* genetic advantage of being Scots *and* female.
Education - attended eleven schools (quantity is everything).
Exemplary upbringing - I *always* eat *all* my vegetables.

Will that do? Do I qualify?? Is this like proving you are a true researcher by showing how to get 42 out of your user number?

Oh, better add a few of these for safety .

Waz

What?
Even the peas? And the sprouts?

Then you're a better man than I am Gunga Din.

('oo were dragged up, not brung up)

I heard Tefkat had a little Scot in her.














Sure it wasn't anyone YOU know though

Yep, even the s and the s.

From Barton's post
"For me, this all comes down to my question, is Silent Lucidity, LeKZ? I imagine that nearly all of you posting here are capable of thinking your way around this question and I am asking that you try."

I'm trying. Accepting, for the sake of argument, Barton's outline of the situation re SL, LeKZ and mps in general, I've got as far as the following in thinking about seeing SL as separate from LeKZ:

If SL stays its because we accept that SL is separate from and unaware of LeKZ, an independent individual, right?

So we have to work from the basis of SL's story of his background when we interact with him. He says, for example, that he is a management consultant and a reformed perpetrator of domestic violence (thats my impression, apologies if I misread this). SL uses this 'real to him' background as a basis for talking to, advising (?) other researchers. I'm not comfortable with that. I know that his qualifications, his experiences of these things, are not from the external (to me 'real') world, they were created within the mind(s?) of LeKZ. Other, future, researchers won't know this. Is this a good or even workable basis for SL to talk to people from? Particularly some of the seemingly vulnerable people SL quickly came into contact with while he was here? People for whom trust may be difficult at the best of times.

A further point is that we know SL is here on an agenda of LeKZ, unwittingly so on LeKZ's part or not. Knowing that he is effectively on a mission from LeKZ would make it (my personal opinion) difficult or even impossible to interact with SL as separate from LeKZ. Their unacknowledgable connection would always be in my mind and talking with that in the background would make me feel dishonest.

I understand also that SL's unawareness is not good for LeKZ . We should hope therefore that it doesn't continue. Where do we stand if it doesn't? How do you talk to someone who has a crowd of people looking over his shoulder that you cannot address, he cannot include in the conversation, he cannot pass messages and comments from even though he shares their memories? Is this really workable and would it be a healthy situation for LeKZ?

(My apologies to any mps reading this if this sounds utterly ridiculous. I have no knowledge of mps other than the crashcourse that has been given in the last few months here on h2g2.)

Thank your for your defense, Willem.

Tefkat,

I never addressed the first slur against me in the thread and discussion previous to my raising the issue of Foxy Manor. I took it as something written in the heat of the moment and let it pass.

The editors have ruled against my position there (without ruling against it) and though it bothers me, I have not taken any further action.

You have chosen to attack me here using the same (I suspect) deliberate misreading of what I wrote at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F75100&thread=149563&skip=40&show=20
posting 45. There in the middle of putting forward a point about how allowing moderation to be governed by a standard based on one person possibly being offended, having said that this constituted setting everything to the Lowest Common Denominator, I wrote, "Through education, life experience, and genetics I have achieved a certain advantage that I will not abandon out of some misplaced sense of propriety tied to LCD thinking."

I will grant you that what I wrote was pompous, I was in a pompous and declamatory mood. But, I never set myself above you or any other person in particular. I most certainly did not declare that I was superior.

I said that I had been educated, that I had experiences from a reasonably long life, and that I had been fortunate to have inherited the genetic means to take advantage of those things. The balance of that sentence indicates that I was not inclined to be ruled by thinking that glorifies merely being inoffensive to the most offendable person around.

I'm sorry that you evidently felt that I was attacking you or anyone else that you know by stating that I felt that I had no need to give up to those who speak out of ignorance or inflexible rules laid down by others which they invoke only to serve themselves.

And before you charge me with just those characteristics because of my stance against the possibility of involving children in Foxy Manor and other such places. Please note, that I never attacked anyone who participates in those places for doing so. I only was against them doing it with children either out of ignorance or deliberately. I said so over and over.

That is over, I do not wish to start it here. It is not appropriate.

I will tell you this, if you expect me to credit anything you have to say as more than a mindless revenge based attack for a battle that I lost but which you can't seem to forget, then you are not wise to begin by accusing me of being too far 'above' you to be willing to see that you have irrefutable proof that you don't have but others do.

I offered assertions which I did not provide corroborations for, because they represent those portions of my position that provide background to the thoughts I've had. I *have* the information I did not provide. It is private. It is not likely to ever be revealed here to the world. You don't need to have that background, but this was the third or forth time I had attempted to make the point that I was not arguing for LeKZ. Why should I when LeKZ says the account should be closed?

I was asking any and all of you to consider the question of Silent Lucidity under the circumstances I described and asking for your thoughts. Those thoughts will have no effect on the banishment. Particularly if it is posted here and not at the banishment threads. That's doctrine and regulation.

I was simply asking for consideration and response. Evidently, I confused you or you were just to mad at me to care.

If you want to dispute facts of how things happened. Then you are going to need to organize some facts rather than challenge me to go do your work for you in places which I have no idea exist.

Evidently, Willem has an inkling. He gets around h2g2 far more than I do. But, you already know what you think is decisive. Why are you wasting our time with vague insinuations and veiled threats of twenty other people who aren't coming forward for whatever reasons.

If you hate me, that's fine. If you hate LeKZ, that's fine. If you hate anything, that's fine. It's your life, feel free to consume yourself in anyway that makes you happy, so long as you do no damage to others in the process.

==========================

There seems to have been a lot of posts moderated here recently. Evidently, some of them dealing with me or what I wrote, judging by the comments after about them. I wish I had seem them. If you have copies please feel free to email me. You'll find my email address at my space.

Barton

[I'm -- too pompous for my shirt, too pompous for my shirt,
So pompous that it hurts . . .]

Wazungumza,

I don't mean to damn you with honest praise but, thank you for taking the trouble to consider my question.

Barton

Wazungumza,

I don't mean to damn you with honest praise but, thank you for taking the trouble to consider my question.

Barton

tefkat said "a high IQ is a terrible handicap", and was right, but failed to add the other half of the quote "the only worse handicap is not having a high IQ".

There are also questions of why the modest proposal has been used, and is it worthless.

The modest proposal needs to be used in this case first, to give it a test drive, so we can see if the process works, or need modification.

secondly, the details of this case have brought up the problem of the ip-trace having "proved" the identity of lekz.

The problem with that is that as several people have pointed out, it can't prove the identity, any more than it can disprove the identity.

To prove the identity of someone sitting at the keyboard of a particular machine at a particular time you need measures that are so intrusive that you would not want to be connected to any system that used them.

not to mention that the above mentioned intrusive identification methods would be illegal in some countries.

a lot of the rest is basically "well, he sounds like lekz, and uses lekz's machine".

*pulls Santa's beard*

Barton:

All the posts that some person or other objected to from me to you are back up now, so you can go back and read them whenever you like, assuming someone ELSE doesn't yikes them first.

The only one still hidden was addressed mainly to Willem, number 1399. Personally I've struggled and struggled to see what anyone could find offensive about this, and I've found two mild things. So they're gone.
--------------------------
Willem:

YOU SAID:
"I don't believe in 'judging' people, as in passing a judgement on them of being either worthy or unworthy"

YOU ALSO SAID:
"Barton is a person worthy of respect."

I'm sorry if I missed something there but the second one sounds like you've judged Barton and found him worthy.

OF COURSE you judge people, you do it all the time. You HAVE to. You judged the psychotherapists you used to have - you didn't like them. You judged the ones you have now - you like them. Great!

My only point is that you should make these judgements based on all the facts available to you. If you have a lot of facts about Barton available to you which outweigh [his posts] in the last few days, then it is perfectly understandable that you would JUDGE him worthy of respect, and I won't try to change your mind.

"I would not talk about *anyone* the way you're talking about Barton"

Good for you. I wouldn't be talking *about* Barton at all if he'd actually engage in a debate instead of [not doing]. If he'd do that basic thing, I'd talk *to* him, and a damn sight more politely too. But he hasn't. Hence, my attitude.

As for not esteeming myself highly enough...
I'm not going down that route. My head just about fits through the door, Willem, thanks for asking. And I try not to demean anyone who hasn't done something intentional to deserve it.

For instance, I have never, as far as I can remember, demeaned you. Why would I? We debate, I put points, you answer them, you put points, I answer them. We do not necessarily agree, but we can debate because we listen to each other and think out our answers.

The worst anyone who engages me in rational debate, such as you do, Willem, can expect to be exposed to is weak puns. Repeatedly ignore simple questions, be evasive, dissemble, deceive, and expose your ignorance without accepting it, and you should expect to be demeaned.

As for my first point: read you loud and clear. Completely.

H.

Extra! Extra! Read all about it! BBC Legal Department in answering-question shock!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A655913

I asked, and I asked, and I asked. They've answered.

Crikey, Barton, if even lawyers can do it...?

H.