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

I'm entirely on the side of the Editors in this one.

I haven't been paying attention to the events that lead up to this, but as he's a known troll it was coming sooner or later.

I have only known Hoo a very short time, but I my enjoyment of his posts has been intense. I can't deny sometimes I thought he went too far, but that was always fine by me - taking the really good with the mildly bad.

Anyway, I was especially saddened to be learning after his departure that we shared a common interest in science. And although he may not return, I hope that someday on either Hootoo or otherwise, we can collaborate.


Lastly, someone said he was overly aggresive towards creationists. I think that statement is an oxymoron. It's impossible to be too agressive in the fight against creationism. Whoever said he was too aggresive towards creationists, are you from the US? Have you heard about what's happening in the US? The kansas board of education is repeatedly attempting to put creationism on equal footing with evolution in high school education. Teachers in the south routinely don't teach evolution at all, for fear of the wrath of parents complaining. The creationists, emboldened by their success with evolution, now plan on attacking *geology* and *physics*. This isn't some minor nuisance in the US - this is a serious threat to US science.

I would hope that in the future, if I encounter creationism on hootoo or in RL, I will be able to swing the mallet with the precision and strength that Hoo has.

Della

Amen to that. In fact, I watched a feeding frenzy on a Creationist started by Hoo. I have no truck with Creationism, but they are human beings too and their rights, which include NOT being harassed and NOT being compared to paedophiles, should be respected. When I stood up to him because of his harassment of this Researcher, I got harassed as well. People talk about his 'contribution' to this site, but all I saw was this nastiness dressed up as rationalism. Good bloody riddance.

Whatever the merits of his arguments, Hoo's tone and behaviour was completely indefensible. He is entirely the architect of his own misfortune. And 'schadenfreude' is such a LOVELY word.

I find myself agreeing with FM.

Woo-hoo: a Red Letter Day! Perhaps I should crack open the ?

I don't have time to read all the backlog unfortunately, but I'm at one of my friends being banned.

I've also had a "Doctor Who" moment recalling a few years ago when we seemed to have a Reseacher banned every week and paranoia set in.

Please don't let us go back to those days.

I bet someone is lurking this thread and laughing hir socks off.

Well, I hope none of you have to live in the Southern US, or that fundamentalist Christians don't hijack your public school systems.

Well that puts you in a good position to comments doesn't it? Weren't you an italic at some point?



Well, if Hoo's actions are trolling it is certainly a new definition to me - if following people around asking them to recind rubbish they have posted or to get an apology then that could be trolling I suppose - or it could be standing up for a bit of truth and honesty. Hoo's appearances have been quite limited recently his activities recently could not be defined as trolling - there are dome excellent examples of trolling going on at the moment for you to look at.

I understand the reaction against creationists, although I admit living in NZ such people are not taken seriously so it's way less of a deal here. However I have observed that Hoo has difficulty differentiating between creationists and anyone who had religion. I've been in a convo with him where he described religious people as subhuman, several times. I was trying to fit Ghandi, the Dalai Lama, Bishop Tutu etc into Hoo's worldview and the only thing I could come up with was that he was so rabidly anti anything religious that it was clouding his intellect.

What's p*ssed me off is that almost any discussion about religion on h2 quickly degenerates into a creationism vs science/rationalist debate. Personally I find it boring, but it also disturbs me that otherwise intelligent people can neither see other people's points of view, nor see that religion is a diverse complex experience and lumping all religious people into one group makes as much sense as racism. Unfortunately Hoo is not alone in this on this site.

I've called Hoo an intellectual fundamentalist before and I still stick by that. He definitely has his blinding blind spots.

I still hope he comes back, and I'm sure the site will survive well enough without him.


~~~

Just to be pedantic for a moment - Hoo hasn't been banned. He has had his account suspended (or 'restricted') for a month, after which he can come back if he wants. I think to call it a ban compares it to people who have been denied access permanently and that this is inaccurate and an inflammation of the situation.

(analogy) Even if a person is saying the world is flat when it is patently round? It is a bit difficult to see a persons point of view in these circumstances and unfortunately that is pretty much it when it comes to creationism vs evolution.

Hoo was harsh but (nearly always) nearly fair.

And yes I do know him personally and he has dragged me over the coals about things over the years but it has certainly improved the way I look and analyse issues. And we do not agree on everything btw and I have pulled him up a couple of times on a few things.

<>

I agree.

Alex.

<>

Me and you both babes.


Alex.

>>>


(analogy) Even if a person is saying the world is flat when it is patently round? It is a bit difficult to see a persons point of view in these circumstances and unfortunately that is pretty much it when it comes to creationism vs evolution.
<<<

Alfster, you've just done exactly the same thing - equating religion with creationism.

I thinks the Eds have been cowards and got this wrong.

The *whole* situaiton festered due to lack of any discernable action from TPTB.

Why could they not (as I suggested to them) start the process by specifically warning onsite that any further DW action would result in immediate pre-mod, or month ban I dont care much what.

The thing is after basically doing sweet FA for 18 months they should have let people know the exact outcome of not stopping before they did it.

Give people a chance to "do the right thing" but that didn't happen. After so long of not saying anything I think they have got the tactics all wrong and I am really dissapointed.

Ben

Ferretbadger, are you actually suggesting that Hoo of all people somehow didn't understand the Transgression Procedures, and how they factored into all of this?

> I bet someone is lurking this thread and laughing hir socks off.

Yup, and I'd bet that the someone is Hoo.

Life's rich tapestry, eh? I'll miss him, and I really do hope that when the summer is over, the winter term starts again, and he gets bored with whatever wierd outposts of the internet he finds in the meantime, that he comes back.

Mina, Hoo is a lot of things, but he isn't a troll. I *loathed* the way he would get an obsessive bee in his bonnet about specific researchers and attack them with logic-bombs, (JtP, Adeleide, etc, etc), but he wasn't a troll.

He was suspended for threatening to break pre-mod, (he read me the post over the phone and the email he got from the editors).

I think the suspension was the right thing for the italics to do in the circumstances, and no I don't think he had it coming to him in a more general way. If he hadn't threatened to undermine the disciplinary procedures of the site, I doubt very much he'd have been suspended.

The email from the Italics was masterly, btw, showing awareness of the whole situation, humour and with only two ambiguities, which is not bad given the length of it. I particularly liked a phrase which I paraphrase here which more or less said "a lack of intelligence is not against the terms and conditions of the site". Genius, that Italic. Respect.

Anyway, the sun is shining, the birds are singing, the evenings are light> So he rang the bell and ran away. I am tempted to say 'good for him', but I won't.

Ben

Jeez, why's everyone getting uptight...
Hoo's a big boy and it's not as if it's the first time he's decided to play at either italic baiting or researcher baiting...

The two phrases that spring to mind are

If you can't take a joke you shouldn't have joined...

and possibly, even more appropriate...

If you play with fire, expect to get burnt!

Thanks Ben That was nice to hear. It brightens my day.