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

Brown owls are for the brownies aren't they?

> "it would involve a lot of "loss of face" from TPTB"

Yes and that's part of the point. They ought to get over such bad attitudes on their part. The more they fail to do so the more they lose genuine face or respect by trying to preserve their illusory version.

> "Brown owls are for the brownies aren't they?"

I know someone who is a brown owl for some scouts, so the terminology may have become much more mixed (along with mixed sexes being allowed in some groups?).

SEF:

We do of course have to be realistic; no body, not the italic, me, FB, YOU or anybody is perfect. We are in fact all human and fallible. It is a normal part of the human condition that we do not like to loose face; I know that I will often persevere with something rather than loose face and I am convinced that EVERYBODY does it.

Yes you are quite correct that in an ideal world TPTB would be totally objective and impartial but that is never going to hapen in the real world. Generally the towers staff do a very good job and run what is in my opinion a fine website, even if I disagree with their descions from time to time.

I can't be bothered reading through all the backlog of this; I've only seen the first few pages...

Have TPTB (or anyone important, for that matter) given any explanations, or said anything on the article being removed?

Not really, they have said that as a result of a review of the way they were interpreting Ed Pol guidelines they have realised that some edited content was not actually suitable. That is about as specific as they have got.

To bring life back into this thread, I shall now utter some Magickal Wyrds:
Abrahadabra, shaddakazzam, badda-bing badda-boom and the Elephant Man - "I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not so sure".

Well it worked.

F

I think one would need better proof that it was the magical words which produced the effect though as opposed to, say, the adding of any post at all to the thread.

(Do not "diss" the magick words! I'm warning you, if you're not careful I'll replace you with a robot that types exactly like you!)

I didn't say that the ridiculous words were the magick ones. I could've meant Fathom's post was the magical words. I didn't, of course, but who cares?

Perhaps this is a bit conspiracy theory tastic but does any one think that this :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3173909.stm

has anything to do with anything?

Interesting. Tessa Jowell said: "It will be open and transparent. And it will be motivated by a desire to give the British people the TV, radio and new media services they deserve, and no other motive will intrude."

I wonder if h2g2 will get a special mention?

"describes and condones an activity which is now illegal in the UK"??
Female masturbation? I hardly think so! Please clarify.

For anyone without a thread tree diagram, that last post was a reply to the first post in this thread. Unless someone has edited the original post since, I think the repeated A-number was a mistake and the intention was to refer to al-fresco sex. Although it is possible the sheer quantity of backlog has confused me too.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F19585?thread=308934 Is a good place for peeps to look, if they're worried about what was said in the link in post 950.

seen this?

http://news.independent.co.uk/digital/news/story.jsp?story=437468

sorry, for anyone who can't do the link thing, it's an article in today's Independent saying:

"The Shadow Culture Secretary, John Whittingdale, called yesterday for the BBC to close down its website, which includes some of the most visited internet pages in Europe"

obviously I can't snip it all out and put it here, but this bit is interesting:

"Meanwhile, the Government has launched its own investigation into the BBC's online activities, under the former Trinity Mirror chief executive Philip Graf. He refused to comment yesterday."

Yaay, for the BBC:

"The BBC said Mr Whittingdale was "entitled to his views".

More about the reasons why so many organisations seem to get rid of the BBC can be found in:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/6/32544.html

A snippet from it:
"The problem is that the BBC of today is an incredibly arrogant organisation - and that gets people's backs up. As the BBC has grown more and more out of touch with the world around it, it has desperately clung to its culture. And that refusal to change has seen it faced with frustration and anger, which in turn has seen it tighten up in indignation.

The National Union of Journalists recently revealed that the BBC was the worst media organisation in the UK for bullying. Numerous examples of blame culture have emerged in recent years. People from outside the organisation have been appalled by the politics and cliques within the BBC. Tales abound of petulant, unpleasant, even sadistic, producers and middle-managers lashing out to disguise their all-too-real fear of discovery."

Now see if this survives the mods

Your post has survived quite well so far.

Those views certainly match what my BBC insiders have told me and what I've experienced here myself and seen in the backlog (as well as being the general impression of most people I know who have been merely observing from the outside).

Personally an arrogant Beeb or US style commercial drivel....

I know what I choose in a pepsi challenge every day of the week