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

So jodan you sayin it was a fix to bar AWOL then..?

House rules ...????? What house rules ?????

Did i miss somethin on the way in ..????

House rules

Read them for what they are a joke

By registering on h2g2, you agreed to the House Rules.

It was not a fix - he was posting questionable material repeatedly. If you continue spamming, you may find yourself in the same fix

(inexorably fascinated by this)

Just a question, because Tango is so caught up in semantics...

when did calling someone stupid become a valid form of argument?

I guess it only qualifies as an argument when they deny it...

You're right, though, MR, it *is* fascinating... Sort of like watching a car crash in extreme slow motion, with subliminal flashes of Kafka added for good measure. Better than late-night TV, anyway...

calling someone stupid is a valid argument when you can back it up using factual evidence of other situations and events to show how you came to that conclusion. then it is up to the editors to respond to the facts, so that a different conclusion can be reached.

also, the posts of Tango's that were hidden were 'deemed' offensive in moderation, not 'were' offensive, as the meanings were misinterpretted. i am sure Tango will respond in the morning to those points, however, until then, let's all have a nice cup of !

spook

ps. *waves to the stalker following my conversations*

* waves back *

But it's not me honest Guv.

GD, perhaps he's waving at me? Don't know.

Calling someone stupid is a valid argument? Really? On what criteria? Tango has called me stupid for asking legitimate questions, like asking him to saying exactly what he means when he says that he can bring this website crashing down. How? Why? What purpose would it serve? Where is he getting his information? From whom, and has he verified it through legitimate research?

If Tango would like to answer these questions (I'm still waiting for the article he claimed he would be writing...is it still in the works?), then that would be great. Calling people stupid is the sign of a weak argument. And oh, yes...

for Tango, from the Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd edition:

argument (n.) [a. F. argument (13th c.), ad. L. argment-um, f. argure (or refashioning, after this, of OF. arguement, f. arguer): see ARGUE. For use of the L. form, see 3c.]

1. Proof, evidence, manifestation, token. (Passing from clear proof in early, to proof presumptive in later usage; cf. ARGUE 3.) arch.

2. Astr. and Math. The angle, arc, or other mathematical quantity, from which another required quantity may be deduced, or on which its calculation depends.

3. a. A statement or fact advanced for the purpose of influencing the mind; a reason urged in support of a proposition; spec. in Logic, the middle term in a syllogism. Also fig. b. Const. (to obs.), for, a conclusion; hence (of later origin) against the contrary. c. In certain phrases borrowed from the formal terminology of the schools, the L, argumentum is in current use, esp. in argumentum ad hominem. argumentum e (or ex) silentio, an argument from silence: used of a conclusion based on lack of contrary evidence.

4. A connected series of statements or reasons intended to establish a position (and, hence, to refute the opposite); a process of reasoning; argumentation.

5. a. Statement of the reasons for and against a proposition; discussion of a question; debate. b. transf. Subject of contention, or debate. Obs.

6. Subject-matter of discussion or discourse in speech or writing; theme, subject. Obs. or arch.

7. The summary or abstract of the subject-matter of a book; a syllabus; fig. the contents.

I was not admitting that my posts were offensive, i was just pointing out that the italics, beyond being wrong, were being inconsistant as well. Even if my posts were offensive they should not have been hidden.

What do you have against the word "stupid"? It is a description of a person, just like any other description. It may not be a nice thing to call someone, but that does not stop it being a valid description.

MR, i called you stupid because you were asking questions that had already been answered, and you were basing your post on obvious misinterpretations of what i has said. That is being stupid.

Tango

Tango, I hesitate to get involved at this point, but I have a theory for you to consider...

Many people seem to be misinterpreting your posts. You choose to see this as a sign they are all stupid. Science teaches us that where there is more than one explaination for a phenomenon, we should stick with the simplest one until it is conclusively disproved. Given that so many people are misinterpreting your posts, I see two possible scenarios:

1) Several people are being stupid (unusual, then, that they all seem to be coming up with the same interpretations) or are deliberately choosing to look for a meaning other than the intended one. (the latter might imply a conspiracy)

2) One person is expressing themselves unclearly (either through accident or inability), or deliberately phrasing their posts to confuse others. (either through mischief or malice)

I know which seems the simpler explaination to me; I'll leave it up to others to form their own opinion.

SEF wrote: 'Being the person most qualified to comment on the factual CA issues...'

Oh yeah? Been in touch with the real world lately, SEF, or is your head just stuck so far up your own arse that it's caused serious memory loss? Last I heard, you've had *nothing* to do with the CA's for several months - so you're certainly not the most qualified!

As with many other such situations you are failing to look at the nature of those stupidly or deliberately misinterpreting things as opposed to those both able and willing to read them properly. So (1) is actually the case, with the conspiracy part being entirely optional as the misinterpreters can all individually decide to be nasty or be relatively stupid without necessarily having reference to each other. Though the history of this site shows there is a prevalent dog pack mentality (even sponsored by the staff) which might be regarded as an implicit conspiracy.

"Last I heard"

Which just shows that your sources of information are not reliable or accurate - even if that includes h2g2 staff.

Besides which, if you (or more likely other people) look again at the post from which that quote was taken, you'll see that the comment was actually in answer to your previous defamatory remarks and in context of those people commenting on the SOG's right to have a graphic.

As far as the factual side of the CAs goes I am still more qualified than most to comment though because I was officially in the group for about 6 months, I tell the truth unlike most people (here or elsewhere) and I understand the technical details (whereas others have demonstrated and even admitted that they don't).

Peet - if Tango's points make perfect sense, to me, then i'd go with option one, as people are having a pre-formed view of the intention of his comments and assuming they are just offensive instead of looking at what he is really saying and the points he is really making. Mr Ioxide is actually the main person here to be chucking around insults, while neither me, Tango, or SEF have responded in the same manner. yet who are the ones criticised for giving their truthful, factually based opinions, while the other is left with repramand to continue his bad doings?

i believe my point is made about editorial favouritisme and unfairness.

spook

>>>'commenting on the SOG's right to have a graphic'

Let's get one thing straight, right now. *No-one* has any *right* to have a graphic. These facilities are merely being offered. There is a vast difference!

Oi, spookie

You said: "Mr Ioxide is actually the main person here to be chucking around insults..."


You could at least try and spell my name right. Or can't you read?

Or write. But, that's not really on topic. Is it, Mr Ixolite?

spelugx -- noeting that there's good reasons for not spelling write soemtimes

Hmmmm... strange... i remember someone telling me how i wouldn't like it is people started picking me up on my spelling, when i had done no such thing, and now someone is picking up someone else on their spelling... i'm starting to think i really must be very special to have so many things apply differently to me than to other people.

Tango

PS Peet, that previous post was clumsily phrased and on re-reading I see that it appears more personally directed than intended. It should have begun:

As with many other such situations people are failing to look at the nature of those involved. [ed: I had creationists and placebo in mind when starting the phrase] In this case you (and others) are failing to look at the nature of those stupidly or deliberately misinterpreting things as opposed to those both able and willing to read them properly. etc