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

Ok, right then Desk, let's sort this out.

Okay only a few qualms i have about this entery, and thats mainly the fact that you say there evil.

Depending on which side of the fence you choose to sit, the Nazi's were deranged or revolutionary.

Now before i carry on, i appologise if this offends anybody, but im going to be honest.

Many of the Nazi ideals such as eugenics and even the idea of living space for german people can be traced back to sparta. In turn, were they evil?
Torture is in the news a lot at the moment. By saying things are evil your inviting people to draw a line through the entire affair, with the allies on one side and the brits on the other. Yet nearly half a century after the contentration camps that killed tousands of people, we ourselves are torturing people (who i might add, we conquered in an attempt to stop torture, besides other things).

I think you need to go over the entery and make it totally unbiased against the Nazi party.

So you're justifying the murder of 6 million people...

no of course not, but supposing the british had done something similar (churchill did recommend using nerve agents against iraqis, which would have killed thousands if not into the millions).

All im saying is that its biased. Just remove the evil referances thats all

'Depending on which side of the fence you choose to sit, the Nazi's were deranged or revolutionary.'

Well for those who believe revolutionary (ie BNP, neo-nazis), I must profess to not valuing their opinion on the subject at all.

'Many of the Nazi ideals such as eugenics and even the idea of living space for german people can be traced back to sparta. In turn, were they evil? '

This isn't about Lebensraum, or Sparta, or ideology, it's about the twisted minds behind the third reich. Your point has very little relevance.

'Torture is in the news a lot at the moment. By saying things are evil your inviting people to draw a line through the entire affair, with the allies on one side and the brits on the other.'

No, I don't mention torture. I touch upon certain facets of the Nazi regime. And there is no line between the allies and the Brits, as the British were part of the allied armies. That point makes very little sense to me.

'Yet nearly half a century after the contentration camps that killed tousands of people, we ourselves are torturing people (who i might add, we conquered in an attempt to stop torture, besides other things).'

a)It was upwards of SIX MILLION people. Not thousands. Millions.
b) The entry has no relevance with today's war in Iraq. No mention is made, there's no link I can see.

'I think you need to go over the entery and make it totally unbiased against the Nazi party.'

There is no way you can make a totally unbiased account of the Nazi Party. They were key players in a war which changed Europe forever and they attempted to destroy a whole race of people.

'All im saying is that its biased. Just remove the evil referances thats all'

Including the Goebbels quote which justifies the bias against the Nazis?

Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, handicapped...

Its a biased entery. The best enteries in the guide are those that are biased.

"Well for those who believe revolutionary (ie BNP, neo-nazis), I must profess to not valuing their opinion on the subject at all."
"it's about the twisted minds behind the third reich."

Just by that, its biased comments. Yes what they did was wrong, but history is written by the victor. If hitler has won they would have been seen as necessary compromises.
The number has no real relevance, millions of people have been killed, and it was seen as necessary (hiroshima for example). The word holocaust has english routes as well (in other words, us brits invented it, so are we evil as the nazis might not have done it if we hadnt of invented it).

If its impossible to write an unbiased entery then it shouldnt be in the guide. Guide enteries should be impartial and balanced, no matter the subject matter.

Ignoring the fact that your last post totally contradicts itself for a second...

'Just by that, its biased comments. Yes what they did was wrong, but history is written by the victor. If hitler has won they would have been seen as necessary compromises.'

Hitler didn't, and the actions of the Nazis are reviled by all. I refuse, point blank to put forward a point of view that justifies the systematic execution of a race of people.

'The number has no real relevance, millions of people have been killed, and it was seen as necessary (hiroshima for example).'

The entry isn't about Hiroshima.

'The word holocaust has english routes as well (in other words, us brits invented it, so are we evil as the nazis might not have done it if we hadnt of invented it).'

Holocaust is Hebrew for Sacrifice. Admittedly anti-semetism was carried out in Britain, but that doesn't make the Brits of today evil as they for the most part do not harbour such tendencies. Your point would be valid if I called Germans evil, not Nazis. To say if there had been no anti-semitism in Nazi Germany without Britain shows not only a lack of understanding on the subject, but that you are attempting, in my eyes anyway, to justify the Holocaust. A truly reprehensible prospect.

"Its a biased entery. The best enteries in the guide are those that are biased."

"If its impossible to write an unbiased entery then it shouldnt be in the guide. Guide enteries should be impartial and balanced, no matter the subject matter."

Those two statements contradict each other Is there a typo in there somewhere?

Hiroshima was a referance, as was iraq.

Im not trying to justify the holocaust. People have tried to justify holocausts (e.g. the churchill referance, which i know has nothing to do with the entery, but im using it anyway) and failed. But you cant simply right them off as evil. Did any of them have wives? children? colleges? what did they think of them? did any of them care for there families as paramount importance?

By what critria do you judge them as evil? because if its the killings, then the americans with british backing have done more. if its on the idea, then we came up with it.

As long as there not refered to as evil then im quite happy. Theres enough subject matter for people to judge the nazis themselves, so let them. By saying this man is evil, your judging them by your own personal belief system.


(Holocaustium is featured in the doomsday book. Probibly does feature in hebrew too)

Asmodai Dark, I'd like to ask you to unsubscribe from this thread. You may feel you have a valid point, but it is coming accross that you are sympathising with the Nazi Party and attempting to make excuses for them. This may well not be what you intend, but myself and others who have mentioned this to me via MSN are gobsmacked at what appear to be your extremist right-wing views.

If you choose to ignore this, fine but I will be disregarding all input you have with regards to bias, real or imagined.

Yep there wrong. Excuse my typing.

"Its a biased entery. The best enteries in the guide are those that are biased."
The best enteries are those that are unbaised*


"If its impossible to write an unbiased entery then it shouldnt be in the guide. Guide enteries should be impartial and balanced, no matter the subject matter."
biased*


Its the language you have used that i simply cant agree with. The people who are shocked by what appear as right wing veiws please by all means come forward.
I will continue to give feedback until it becomes unbiased. Whats the point in having an impartial guide if its not impartial?

It's true that Hitler is widely regarded as one of the most evil men in history - that's a fact.

Here's a neat, unbiased looking link; http://www.hitler.org/.

Steady on there Psycorps - I'm not seeing any extremist right wing views in what he's saying, and he may well have a vailid point about taking the word 'evil' out of the entry. Calling someone's *deeds* evil is very different from calling that person evil. Could you perhaps work that idea into the entry without losing its impact?

Thankyou Zarquon.

Sorry Gosho, I got carried away a bit. I'll think about maybe changing the wording, but I still think it works well as is.

"When people hear the word 'Nazi', they immediately think of one of the most evil men in the history of the world. Adolf Hitler."

That is the only reference to evil. Adolf Hitler signed the orders for the Holocaust, preached hatred against the majority of the world. Ask any layman in the street 'Was Hitler evil' and I think they will say yes.

I can't see how re-writing that one line will alter the entry at all, and therefore, I don't really see the point in it. To my eyes it is no different (in terms of bias) to this line from an edited entry on John Charles:

'Undoubtedly the most accomplished footballer of his time'

Hence, I am extremely reluctant to change the line as Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party were inherently evil. For Pete's sake, Goebbels killed his wife and children!

That's my final point on the subject, now if Master B would like to discuss the 'lazy Hitler' interpretation problems with me, we'll work it out.

Psycorp.

S'ok

How about this:

"they immediately think of one of the most evil men in the history of the world"
'they immediately think of someone generally considered to one of the most evil men in the history of the world'
A very subtle change in the meaning... perhaps too subtle, but it's the best I can think of at the mo.

"each of them deserves to be remembered as the criminals that they were."
That can stay exactly as it is because they were tried and convicted.

Just found another typo: percieved - I before E except after C

I think I meant GreyDesk. Feel free to dock my Fantasy Football points total for that...