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

Correction http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F133070?thread=302609 thanks

TS,

You appear to be stating that Philosophy and Metaphysics are the same thing. I think they're very different, although I admit that my dictionary defines metaphysics as theoretical philosophy. You state that 'Metaphysics is concerned with the world as it can be understood by reason and the senses only' and that's not what I understand by Metaphysics at all. Did you really mean to say this?

NB: The OED gave a much wider (and longer) definition of Metaphysics. I shan't quote it here, although I could, if need be.

Hi again, TS.

This sentence:

It is not a treatment the reasoned reflection on God, the things of God and the relationship of God and Humanity – or the revelation of Him in Jesus of Nazareth – for that is Theology.

doesn't make sense. Not a treatment? What do you mean?

Re posts 22,23 and24
Zarquon's Singing Fish! (ACE & Scout)

What do you mean?

Re: posts 22,23 and 24
Zarquon's Singing Fish! (ACE & Scout)
What do you mean?

Re: posts 22,23 and 24
Zarquon's Singing Fish! (ACE & Scout)
What do you mean?

The sentence doesn't make any sense to me. I don't know what you mean by it.

Hands up those who know what it means!

Zarquon's Singing Fish! (ACE & Scout) - loved, lovable and loving!

This is a PR thread to my first article – offered in good faith.
What ARE you on about
Your postings are descending into SPAM.
Please go away: read the article very carefully, read the PR guidelines, read the guidelines for ACEs and Scouts (since you carry those badges) and note you position in relation to Official Sub Editors (of which UnC13 H3avy0R (133t) (aNaRcy 4 eVa! D00D) is one).

I think that you are posting here in order to artificially suppress this article.
If you do not recognise Official Sub Editors’ authority, then too bad but, I do – and let the record show as such.
If you cannot post in a constructive manor then keep silent.

I am awaiting ANY Sub Editor’s input on the posted redraft incorporating reasoned and measured updates (see post 18 - which was enacted after a BT line fault, as stated in post 19).

My apologies to everyone else, and can we get back to PR of the article.
Thanks,

ZSF hasn't been surpressing the article, I'm sure. She's a scout. What may seem like surpressing is really just scouting- assuring the quality of the guide

And Sub editors don't go into PR as much as scouts. The scouts are equally qualified to give this input

Jodan - Scout

And you comments on the article are?

I was commenting on your attitude, which I find annoying

Why do you find my request for your comments on the article – in a PR thread – annoying?
Posts, or parts of posts, will no longer be answered here by me, unless they are PR about the article. Anything else belongs on ‘my space’.

Well, I for one found it short and sweet. A good, easy read.

someone is a bit touchy...

This appears to be digressing from what we're supposed to be discussing - the article. The subject of the article is up to the writer - pretty much the point of the Guide.

ZSF was posting valid questions, but I think everyone's taking all this a bit personally now.

Have a and then we'll all feel better.

Hi everyone,

As Rains said, we all need to try and sort out the criticism from the flaming. If we can succeed in cooling this situation down some, this entry could come out of Peer Review as a great submission. However, I'd hate to see the opposite happen, and have a great article crash and burn because people let it.

With that in mind, I'd appreciate it if we could all sit down, count to ten, have a cup of (or water, in my case ), and help to make this entry better.

Towel Surfer, and anyone else who's interested, I've posted to your personal space about this, in the thread that Jodan created. Before you post again, could you read it, reply to it, and try to see what we're saying?

*bookmarks entry for further study*

As requested, my personal opinion on this debate, copied from http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F71011?thread=302830&latest=1 <> all round. Or maybe if this keeps going! Will, could you elaborate on what you think needs to be done to this entry?

Thanks for all the constructive postings since my last one, (post 33).

I claim a precedent in introducing new material whilst keeping the article in PR, since sub editorially influenced material has been added to this article previously.

The following new material, has been added, in good faith that the article will emerge from PR into the Edited Guide – at some stage.

<>

<>

<>

<>