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

FM

Ok you raise a number of interesting points. I am working on the assumption that you are talking primarily about the argument between "hoo" and "Goodnews" right? Although presumably extrapolated onto a more general situation.

I am also pre-supposing that you are assuming that Hoos row with Apple is directly analogous to the row he had with GoodNews right?

Feel free to correct me on both those assumptions.

However I will answer first assuming both those are at least partially true. Now it has often been pointed out in situations of Bans and suspensions that the people involved can still *read* what is posted but cannot respond. Therefore I think I will speak in his defence as it were.

"However, you would *not* expect one of your detractors to follow you home and bang on your front door all hours of the day and night aggressively asking you the same questions, comparing you to a child abuser."

Do you really think that is a fair characterisation of what occured? Unless I missed out on a particualrly significan part of the Hoo/GooNews fight it took place in one thread. A thread if I am not very much mistaken related to the claims in question.

Now for my I though Hoo was being out of order. Over the top. Probably through boredom. But again I dont think Hoo actually compared Hoo to a child abuser. My reading of what he posted was that he was comparing the way (in his mind) creationists warp the minds of impressionable young children in schools and churches to make them belive that creationism is ok. To the way Peadophiles do the same to try and make children belive what the peado does with them is ok. That (whilst a bit over the top IMHO) is not the same as calling someone a childabuser. Perhaps saying that if GoodNews taught creationism to kid his "modus operandi" would be the same, but a different claim entirely.

And on that note from your first paragraph:-

"someone who held a very unorthodox view, for instance, that the world was flat when established wisdom held it was conical. Let’s further suppose that you didn’t make a big song and dance about this view, but you weren’t afraid to say that you held it"

But what if you don't "quietly" hold this view point? What if you publically preach it and try to convince others of it. What if in doing so you are activly putting them in a position where they might come say theoretically to some harm from this opinion that had no basis in fact.

Wouldn't other people at least where you publically preach it have *every* right to challange the nonsence that you are spouting. In a way dont people who know better have a responsibility to do so?

If someone holds personal quacko views fine, up to them. But surely in any kind of free society in public rational people (even rational facists) should have the right to challenge irrational nosence.

And for my money the argument occuring on h2g2 is more equatable to a public soapbox speaker than hammering on that persons home door.

Or that "Hoo compared GoodNews to a child abuser" even

You're wrong, I'm afraid. Hoo argued with GN in the thread, then persecuted him on his PS (after he'd won the argument), and then when I told him what I thought of his behaviour came around and tried to bully me into silence. You can find the evidence there if you want to look for it. Moroever, he did in fact say that Creationists were as bad as paedophiles: the post has been (rightly) yikesed.

I stand by what I said to him on my PS, that this has *never* truly been about defending a rationalist scientific viewpoint. Everybody who has weighed up the evidence properly knows that Creationism is really not true, but they also know the barabarian hordes are not anywhere near to battering down the gates nor ever will be. This whole episode has been about someone having a big stick and trying to find someone to beat with it.

If any Creationist wants to take me on they are perfectly willing to do so, and I will respond in a civilised and rational fashion. The worst result they can expect from such an encounter will be a bruised ego. The best result might be actually that they comprehend the error of their ways and modify their beliefs. If they don't, then it's their problem, not mind, and I will challenged their beliefs as and when it is appropriate, in the same fashion. I will, however, respect their basic rights as people at all times.

Fair one, but you are quite wrong about "barbarian hordes" IMHO, creationism is a political movement with a huge amount of clout in the states. There are many places where kids are taught creationist nonsence in schools.

To dismiss it as crackpots who hold silly but harmless views is ignoring the degree of the problem IMHO. And whilst you are free to have the opinion that Hoo is just looking to bully someone and it has nothing to do with rationalism, neither you nor I can ever really know.

I dont know about you but I don't know Hoo persoanlly, everything I do know comes from what he posts herem and thus I do not feel I can make a proper judgement about what does or does not drive him. I guess we all think what we want to think about such things.

OK, so you and I disagree on this. One thing I can guarantee is that this is where it will end: we will agree to differ. I will NOT start belittling your views, experiences or whatever and I will NOT be visiting your PS to try to get you to shut up so I can carry on intellectually beating up some other poor sap.

Kinda refreshing approach, eh?

>> Everybody who has weighed up the evidence properly knows that Creationism is really not true, but they also know the barabarian hordes are not anywhere near to battering down the gates nor ever will be.

Um. Aren't they teaching creationism in schools in the US in science classes?

One of the most chilling things I have seen on this site was the line from a creationist which said "you can believe in evolution if you want to". The category error which places a coherent hypothesis based on available evidence in the same category as a pre-historic myth filtered though the distorting lense of inaccurate and contradictory transcriptions, translation and all the structures of organised religion is so basic, and so disturbing, that I don't even know where to start with it.



On another subject, I am - to the extent that I am anything - a Buddhist, and at one time I had regular cnversations about Buddhism, spirituality and belief with Hoo. He was always courteous. He challenged my thinking of course, and always paid attention to the answers. He accepted my right to my belief structures, and if I said "this is my logic, it is based on the following premise, and it works for me" he was cool with that, ao long as the logic held good. We differed about premises, of course, and therefore we have come to different conclusions.

My point is that it is perfectly possible to have courteous, intellgient and productive conversations with Hoo on spiritual matters. You just have to accept that (a) you are not going to convert him and (b) he will not permit so much as a shred of woolly thinking.

My spirituality benefitted from the experience.



>> If any Creationist wants to take me on they are perfectly willing to do so, and I will respond in a civilised and rational fashion. The worst result they can expect from such an encounter will be a bruised ego. The best result might be actually that they comprehend the error of their ways and modify their beliefs. If they don't, then it's their problem, not mind, and I will challenged their beliefs as and when it is appropriate, in the same fashion. I will, however, respect their basic rights as people at all times.

The irony is, that it could have been Hoo typing that. As Alex has said elsewhere, he is not very aware of how he comes across to others.

Ben

PS - one other thing. Hoo did not compare creationists with child abusers. He compared the intellectual stunting and abuse of creationists, (eg the remark I quoted above) with the emotional stunting and abuse of paedophiles. I found that interesting, because I had not thought of the consequences into adulthood of indoctrination and bad teaching in that light before, though it is easy enough to see it if you look for it. As an analogy, it worked for me.

Well, I know what I read. And even allowing for your interpretation, it's hard to imagine how a Creationist could do anwhere near as much damage to a child's psyche as a paedophile.

Anywa, he's gone now. As for those who want him back, all I can say is: imagine what *this* conversation would be like with him around. Nuff said.

You are of course entitled to that opinion FM.

And you are right we *shall* agree to disagree. On the subject of this convo if Hoo had been here, I am willing to bet folding money at some point I would laugh out loud. I probably wont have course to do that now.

"As for those who want him back"

I dont think it is really a question of that anyhow FM, Hoo is suspended for a month. Whether or not he comes back after this ban is up to him. However I would not bet my bottom dollar that Hoo has made his last ever post on h2g2....

I wouldn't either, but perhaps he'll do it more circumspectly this time.

It's not the first time he's gone and come back!


alji

" On the subject of this convo if Hoo had been here, I am willing to bet folding money at some point I would laugh out loud. "

You *are* all aware that he hasn't actually ceased to be aren't you? Some of the posts here sound like obituaries!

Hoo is suspended from posting here for a month, that doesn't mean he will never return, and it doesn't mean he isn't reading all this

I'm still surprised that this seems to have affected only two people. The eds referred to 'several' researchers but I haven't heard of anyone else yet.

I was wondering about that too, kelli.


az

What a breath of fresh air you are Felonius Monk. I congratulate you on your calmness and intelligence. Although I consider myself to be intelligent I tend to get angry about certain things I have seen on hootoo, and often post rather differently to you.

Here's a toast to Hoo. The greatest Hootoo researcher that ever was or ever will be. Although he is no longer with us, I know he's watching over us from elsewhere.

Seriously though, I think Kelli that maybe the other researchers who were punished experienced lesser degrees - and therefore we haven't heard about it. Perhaps they also move in circles on hootoo we're not familiar with?

>>Here's a toast to Hoo. The greatest Hootoo researcher that ever was or ever will be. Although he is no longer with us, I know he's watching over us from elsewhere.
<<

Excuse me while I gag for a moment

Sorry Della , that was just way over the top and if it was intended with irony or something else that made it not read so literally please excuse me for missing that.

He's just a guy, you know.

I thought the

"seriously though" at the start of the second paragraph was the if you catch my drift

>>
My point is that it is perfectly possible to have courteous, intellgient and productive conversations with Hoo on spiritual matters. You just have to accept that (a) you are not going to convert him and (b) he will not permit so much as a shred of woolly thinking.
<<

Ben, I wonder how much of that is also to do with the fact that Hoo knows and respects you. From what I have seen his first response is often one of in your face aggression. When this has happened to me I often can't be bothered (my energy is often very low) putting the work in to get to the civilised part of the conversation.

The first time Hoo responded to me aggressively was in the Partial Birth Abortion (sic) thread. We had never had a serious conversation before that, and I just thought f*ck off I'm not talking to someone who so obviously starts a conversation with someone new with such a low level of respect. This is the bit that FM is talking about - considering people to be human before looking at their beliefs and value systems.

I've since come to understand more about Hoo, and I do understand why you and others have such a high opinion about how he relates.

However one thing I notice alot in his debating style is that his level of what one might call emotional intelligence, as well as skills in communication and conflict management, are often very poor. I was surprised to find out that he is in his mid 30s because he often comes across in those ways as someone in their early 20s who hasn't gotten over their adolescence yet.

I'm not trying to insult the man here. Hell, I'm almost starting to like him. I just can't stand all this talking him up without an honest examination of the whole person not just the legend.