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

Entry: homophobia - A731422
Author: caleb16 - U190979

homophobia <caleb16

Hi Caleb,

I'm sure a great many people (including myself) will still disagree with your views. Personally, I can't see how those kinds of beliefs can be made to fit with the view that God is good, just and fair, but that's not a conversation for this space.

However, I'm glad that you've changed your views, and I think it takes a great deal to admit a change of view, and I salute you for it.

But this still isn't the kind of thing that would make a good guide entry. Try http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/Writing-Guidelines for a good summary of what's needed for peer review. This would be good for a journal entry for your home space, but not for the edited guide.

Best wishes

Otto

Do you understand the point of the Edited Guide and Peer Review? The Edited Guide is where we have factual entries. It's not for posting personal opinions. That's what conversation forums are for.

If you read the writing guidelines, it'll show you what is appropriate material for the Edited Guide. This ain't it.

I agree. Peer Review isn't the right place for this kind of article.

In addition, if you have a problem with spell-checkers, learn to spell. It's not fair to inconvenience others because of your "protest".

Hi Caleb,

Please remove this Entry from Peer Review immediately, or we'll do it for you. This is obviously not acceptable content for the Edited Guide, and this is a deliberate abuse of the h2g2 Peer Review system.

I'm sure I visited this thread an hour ago and the previous posting said something else...

We can move our own threads in and out of peer review?

Two bit - yes, just go to the peer review page, any of your own entries will have the word 'remove' on the right hand side of the list of entries, after the author ID, just click there and it'll send the thread back to the entry itself and remove it from PR.

I don't have anything in Peer Review right now. Can you move the threads around from one review forum to another?

I've been debating whether or not to put my Atlanta entry [A677072] up for review. It's getting to the point where it could really use some commentary, but I feel like there's more that could be done with it. I've also thought about holding off and making it part of a Uni project on Georgia. I've been doing some local spots, and I've thought of submitting them all at once.

I don't think you can physically move one thread around different forums, if you put an entry into the writing workshop you'll start a workshop thread:

Axxxxxx - Title

If you then remove it the thread will go back to the entry itself and the title will change to:

Writing Workshop Axxxxxx - Title

Then, you can put the entry into Peer Review, which will start a new thread, again titled:

Axxxxxx - Title

Then when its recommended, or you remove it, the thread goes back to the entry and you end up with two threads under the entry

Writing Workshop Axxxxxx - Title
and
Peer Review Axxxxxx - Title

Is that any clearer to you than it is to me

I'd like to test it, but I don't want a bunch of extra threads hanging around. Maybe I could try it out with one of my delete entries. They're not doing anything useful right now.

The threads end up hanging off the unedited version of the entry, so they tend to get generally ignored, and you can always unsubscribe if you wanted to.

First, I would like to say well done to caleb.

As has been said previously, it isn't easy to come out and admit you were wrong (and there are some on this site who are at least as wrong as caleb was who still have not admitted it), and I think it shows him in a good light.

There have been comment earlier in this thread that this shouldn't have been submitted to peer reveiw, as it is "obviously" not the right sort of stuff to be here.

While the original was definately wrong, I think that this reply should definately have been posted in the same forum as the original, if only so that the people who commented can see that they actually managed to do some good. (I would therefore ask peta to leve it here for at least a little longer so that the rest of us can have a chance to see it).

There is another reason to keep this thread though. There have been some articles which have ended up being top 5 picks on the front page which have originally arrived here in at least as bad a condition as this.

This article, while currently incorrect for the edited guide, could form the basis of quite a good entry (if caleb is prepared to work on it).

It already contains some good stuff about why homophobic christians are wrong, and this could fairly easily be extended with the help of some of the highly educated people who lurk in peer review.

If caleb is willing to do the work, and others are willing to provide helpfull comments, then please give this entry a chance, as a good homophobia review by an ex homophobe would be extremely good for the guide.

Another oportunity that this entry presents is for the creation of a new area of h2g2. What we have here is a classic case of someone being improved by being exposed to the thoughts of more enlightened individuals.

This could be taken as the basis for a whole section on mistaken view held by people, and why they are wrong.

Lets get some success stories written up to contrast with some of the fiasco's which have also occured. Then we can have a sensible discussion on how to turn future potential fiasco's into success stories.

>It already contains some good stuff about why homophobic christians are wrong.

That's an opinion. I thought the goal of the Edited Guide was to have fact based entries. Of course, of late, that's been totally ignored.

The edited guide is supposed to be mainly fact based entries, but it does include other stuff as well (for example "the joy of sox").

and you are right. my comment about why homophobic christians is wrong does sound like opinion, however there are more than just the one type of fact.

for example if homophobic christians try and use a minor section of the bible to justify their belief, it is perfectly reasonable to have an entry pointing this out, and pointing out various other parts of the bible which directly contradict the bits that they quoted.

it has been well over two years since "caleb16" has posted this message and i was curouis if anybody on this string still checks up on it.

Why? it's a load of bigoted offensive crap, best forgotten about.

is there a place where i could read his original entry that caused this uproar?

Personally I'm still looking out for a flock of Lamps!