Journal Entries

My explanation of the events surrounding 'The Intelligence' flame-war

Hello all. You've all been hearing Barton and Arpeggio's side of the story for the past couple of weeks, so its time you heard mine about the events surrounding the infamous 'Intelligence' fiasco leading me taking a temporary break from h2g2, and this and other un-related events which led to Arpeggio having her account suspended.

The trouble all started when I decided to write-up a quick over-view on the subject of 'Intelligence' - I submitted the entry to the 'Peer Review' process. One problem was that I didn't understand the peer review process properly because I hadn't ever actually used the guide much - I only started visiting regularly after Douglas Adamas died - so it was my first time in Peer Review.

People told me I'd made a good start on 'IQ' but I had a long way to go to write a proper article about 'Intelligence' People started giving me lots of good ideas and advice and I started improving my entry. Every one was having fun until 'Arpeggio' invaded the thread.

Arpeggio made a few nasty, sarcastic comments to the effect that I shouldn't be writing an entry about intelligence because I was too stupid. I laughed off the insults and kept on improving my entry. I was doing my best to try to bring the entry up to standard and people told me it was definitely getting better.

Then Arpeggio copied my entire entry from my personal space without asking and reproduced the whole thing in peer review. The record shows that she later talked about reproducing the entire thing on an external web-site to, in her words, 'make an example out of me' All this is not only damn impolite, but it also breaks the copyright rules I think. She had, however, done an extremely detailed review of my entry which was filled with some very good stuff which I could use to improve my entry. Unfortunately however, she punctuated the good stuff with a number of nasty stuff - for example she used upper case letters to 'shout' at me, and she told me she was the teacher and I was the student and I was in school and I had better rise to the occasion or else! The post was enormously long and ranty - it came across as hostile and would take a long long time to respond to properly. And why should I bother when there were insults in there?

Arpeggio herself admits she would have been annoyed had someone else done the same to her. In addition some one (not me) actually referred the post to the moderators. At the time I was annoyed but I let it pass because of the good stuff that was in the post.
But I did say I thought some of her remarks were not fun, and didn't immediately make the changes Arpeggio wanted.

When I didn't immediately make changes, what did Arpeggio do? The record shows that rather than engaging in reasoned debate, she 'went behind my back' - leaving a note to Mark Moxen telling him that my entry was no damn good or something like it.

I was still making improvements and the general opinion was that although I still had some work to do, the entry was now 'pretty good'
(Even Mark Moxen said so on the thread)

Then Arpeggio pulled her next set of stunts. She rushed off the h2g2 support staff and demanded that my entry be removed from peer review. She even accused me of being a bigot! If she was genuinely interested in helping me with the entry, why didn't she debate with me on the thread? Clearly she wasn't interested in listening to my views, but just wanted to impose her world-view on me by 'force' ie by trying to get me offside with 'the powers that be' Finally she accused me of plagiarism and even demanded that the BBC be notified! (And she has the nerve to do this after copying my entire entry without my consent and threatening to post it to an external website!)

I tried to humour her, because all this was absolutely nutty and I could see that she must have some problems in her life. Rather than insulting her back I just made a few sarcastic remarks.

Then Barton immediately jumped down my throat, hurling abuse at me for being rude to Arpeggio!

Well I'd had enough - the peer review was supposed to be for friendly criticism and Barton's and Arpeggio's wasn't. I said to myself, if people are going to be nasty why bother? and decided to quit h2g2 to draw attention Barton's and Arpeggio's abuse.

I would have stayed away and forgot about it, but I was horrified at what followed. Barton and Arpeggio started hurling all sorts of abuse at me for no apparent reason - the abuse was in the form of a number of vicious personal attacks.

When others tried to calm Barton and Arpeggio down, Arpeggio started hurling abuse at them too, in some cases threatening them with recorded records of conversations. After hurling all this abuse around Arpeggio and Barton then complained that others were abusing them!

Barton calmed down, and Arpeggio retreated to her personal space. She then continued to hurl all manner of abuse at me, saying she was going to post my entry to an external web-site to make an example out of me, calling all my writing rubbish and all manner of other vicious names.

In time, the 'Intelligence' flame war dissipated. But I decided to do some checking on Arpeggio's other conversations and I was horrified to find that she had been visiting quite a large number of other conversations and hurling her abuse and threats at many other people. Her behaviour is a classic case of 'trolling' - accusing other people of various things simply to stir up trouble. Some of it was really really nasty stuff - for example she accused another poor fellow of plagiarism again, and demanded that Mikey contact the BBC.

Finally, after a number of warnings, she had her account suspended.

There are a number of statements that Arpeggio and her supporters have made to justify their abuse and their insults. I'll now examine all these statements in turn, and refute them:

Arpeggio: 'Its better to be right than nice!'

Refutation: In most circumstances this is simply untrue. Most reasonable people would agree that ethics takes precedence over facts. In a democratic society, all manner of people, hold all manner of beliefs that are totally wrong! smiley - smiley But this does not justify imposing a correct view of the world upon them by force. Barton and Arpeggio seem to dispute the Renaissance values of tolerance, open-mindedness, and freedom of speech, including the freedom to be wrong! Read my front page to see why I think that Barton and Arpeggios' position contradicts Renaissance values.

h2g2 is 'democratic' in the sense that aside from a few house rules, anyone can put forward their ideas, including ideas that are wrong! Barton and Arpeggio have no right to attempt to impose their view of the world on anyone they disagree with. By all means, they should vigorously debate positions they disagree with, but Arpeggio didn't seem to want to do this. Instead, the record shows that whenever Arpeggio discovered a viewpoint she disagreed with, she immediately rushed off to the powers that be and tried to 'bully' the poster into changing their position- she consistently tried to use 'force' to impose her position, rather than the Renaissance ideal of democratic debate.


Arpeggio: 'Playboy Reporter Is a Bigot'

Refutation: Arpeggio's actions show that it is Arpeggio who is a bigot. Read above. The opposite of bigotry consists of the Renaissance ideals of tolerance, open-mindedness, freedom of speech, and reasoned debate. Bigotry consists of intolerance for anyone different from yourself. Arpeggio has displayed this intolerance time and time again - rather than using reasoned debate she uses bullying to try to impose her world-view on those she disagrees with.


Arpeggio Supporters: Her suspension is unfair because she has a multiple personality and she was abused as a child.


Refutation: We have no way of knowing this, and no way to check if this is true or not. If you look in a text book of psychology, the opinion seems to be that 'multiple personalities' don't exist and that the condition is a fiction socio-paths use to excuse bad behaviour. Whether this is true or not I don't know. Also we have no way of knowing whether or not she was actually abused as a child. I'm really sorry to hear all this if its true, but it doesn't excuse her hurling all her abuse and threats at me and other people.

Note: Every one is invited to check the facts of this dispute for themselves. This can be done by running a search for 'Arpeggio', 'Barton' and myself ('Playboy Reporter') There are records of most of our postings and conversations where you can see most of what we said. Please weigh up all the evidence, and draw your own conclusions.

Discuss this Journal entry [28]

Latest reply: Jul 6, 2001

My explanation of the 'Intelligence' flame-war

Hello all. You've all been hearing Barton and Arpeggio's side of the story for the past couple of weeks, so its time you heard mine about the events surrounding the infamous 'Intelligence' fiasco leading me taking a temporary break from h2g2, and this and other un-related events which led to Arpeggio having her account suspended.

The trouble all started when I decided to write-up a quick over-view on the subject of 'Intelligence' - I submitted the entry to the 'Peer Review' process. One problem was that I didn't understand the peer review process properly because I hadn't ever actually used the guide much - I only started visiting regularly after Douglas Admas died - so it was my first time in Peer Review.

People told me I'd made a good start on 'IQ' but I had a long way to go to write a proper article about 'Intelligence' People started giving me lots of good ideas and advice and I started improving my entry. Every one was having fun until 'Arpeggio' invaded the thread.

Arpeggio made a few nasty, sarcastic comments to the effect that I shouldn't be writing an entry about intelligence because I was too stupid. I laughed off the insults and kept on improving my entry. I was doing my best to try to bring the entry up to standard and people told me it was definitly getting better.

Then Arpeggio copied my entire entry from my personal space without asking and reproduced the whole thing in peer review. The record shows that she lator talked about reproducing the entire thing on an external web-site to, in her words, 'make an example out of me' All this is not only damn impolite, but it also breaks the copyright rules I think. She had, however, done an extremely detailed review of my entry which was filled with some very good stuff which I could use to improve my entry. Unfortunitly however, she puntuated the good stuff with a number of nasty stuff - for example she used upper case letters to 'shout' at me, and she told me she was the teacher and I was the student and I was in school and I had better rise to the occasion or else! The post was enormously long and ranty - it came across as hostile and would take a long long time to respond to properly. And why should I bother when there were insults in there?

Arpeggio herself admits she would have been annoyed had someone else done the same to her. In addition some one (not me) actually reffered the post to the moderators. At the time I was annoyed but I let it pass because of the good stuff that was in the post.
But I did say I thought some of her remarks were not fun, and didn't immediately make the changes Arpeggio wanted.

When I didn't immediately make changes, what did Arpeggio do? The record shows that rather than engaging in reasoned debate, she 'went behind my back' - leaving a note to Mark Moxen telling him that my entry was no damn good or something like it.

I was still making improvements and the general opinion was that although I still had some work to do, the entry was now 'pretty good'
(Even Mark Moxen said so on the thread)

Then Arpeggio pulled her next set of stunts. She rushed off the h2g2 support staff and demanded that my entry be removed from peer review. She even accused me of being a bigot! If she was genuinely interested in helping me with the entry, why didn't she debate with me on the thread? Clearly she wasn't interested in listening to my views, but just wanted to impose her world-view on me by 'force' ie by trying to get me offside with 'the powers that be' Finally she accused me of plagarism and even demanded that the BBC be notified! (And she has the nerve to do this after copying my entire entry without my consent and threating to post it to an external website!)

I tried to humor her, because all this was absolutely nutty and I could see that she must have some problems in her life. Rather than insulting her back I just made a few sarcastic remarks.

Then Barton immediately jumped down my throat, hurling abuse at me for being rude to Arpeggio!

Well I'd had enough - the peer review was supposed to be for friendly critisim and Barton's and Arpeggio's wasn't. I said to myself, if people are going to be nasty why bother? and decided to quit h2g2 to draw attention Barton's and Arpeggio's abuse.

I would have stayed away and forgot about it, but I was horrifed at what followed. Barton and Arpeggio started hulring all sorts of abuse at me for no apparant reason - the abuse was in the form of a number of vicious personal attacks.

When others tried to calm Barton and Arpeggio down, Arpeggio started hurling abuse at them too, in some cases threatening them with recorded records of conversations. After hurling all this abuse around Arpeggio and Barton then complained that others were abusing them!

Barton calmed down, and Arpeggio retreated to her personal space. She then continued to hurl all manner of abuse at me, saying she was going to post my entry to an external web-site to make an example out of me, calling all my writing rubbish and all manner of other vicious names.

In time, the 'Intelligence' flame war dissipated. But I decided to do some checking on Arpeggio's other conversations and I was horrified to find that she had been visiting quite a large number of other conversations and hurling her abuse and threats at many other people. Her behaviour is a classic case of 'trolling' - accusing other people of various things simply to stir up trouble. Some of it was really really nasty stuff - for example she accused another poor fellow of plagarism again, and demanded that Mikey contact the BBC.

Finally, after a number of warnings, she had her account suspended.

There are a number of statements that Arpeggio and her supporters have made to justify their abuse and their insults. I'll now examine all these statements in turn, and refute them:

Arpeggio: 'Its better to be right than nice!'

Refutation: In most circumstances this is simply untrue. Most reasonable people would agree that ethics takes precedence over facts. In a democratic society, all manner of people, hold all manner of beliefs that are totally wrong! smiley - smiley But this does not justify imposing a correct view of the world upon them by force. Barton and Arpeggio seem to dispute the Renaissance values of tolerance, open-mindedness, and freedom of speech, including the freedom to be wrong! Read my frount page to see why I think that Barton and Arpeggios' position contradicts Renaissance values.

h2g2 is 'democractic' in the sense that aside from a few house rules, anyone can put forward their ideas, including ideas that are wrong! Barton and Arpeggio have no right to attempt to impose their view of the world on anyone they disagree with. By all means, they should vigiourously debate positions they disagree with, but Arpeggio didn't seem to want to do this. Instead, the reocrd shows that whenever Arpeggio discovered a viewpoint she disagreed with, she immediately rushed off to the powers that be and tried to 'bully' the poster into changing their position- she consistantly tried to use 'force' to impose her position, rather than the Renaissance ideal of democratic debate.


Arpeggio: 'Playboy Reporter Is a Bigot'

Refutation: Arpeggio's actions show that it is Arpeggio who is a bigot. Read above. The opposite of bigotry consists of the Renaissance ideals of tolerance, open-mindedness, freedom of speech, and reasoned debate. Bigotry consists of intolerance for anyone different from yourself. Arpeggio has displayed this intolerance time and time again - rather than using reasoned debate she uses bullying to try to impose her world-view on those she disgarees with.


Arpeggio Supporters: Her suspension is unfair because she has a multiple personality and she was abused as a child.


Refutation: We have way of knowing this, and no way to check if this is true or not. If you look in a text book of pychology, the opinion seems to be that 'multiple personalities' dont exist and that the condition is a fiction socio-paths use to excuse bad behaviour. Whether this is true or not I don't know. Also we have no way of knowing whether or not she was actually abused as a child. I'm really sorry to hear all this if its true, but it doesn't excuse her hurling all her abuse and threats at me and other people.


Discuss this Journal entry [1]

Latest reply: Jul 6, 2001

Removed

This post has been removed.

Discuss this Journal entry [3]

Latest reply: Jul 5, 2001

Death Of Douglas Adams

Heard the news on teletext yesterday that Douglas Adams had died suddenly of a heart attack in the US. Sad, cause the guy was only 49.

Reading all the messages of condolence around the guide and in the BBC's 'Talking Point' forum. I sent a message to the forum but don't know whether the BBC will post it.

Been thinking recently about 'The Omega Theory' of life-after-death whereby intelligent beings in the far future harness the entire universe to act as a giant computer. They then use this computer to perform a giant simulation of the entire history of the universe and inside this simulation is a simulation of everyone who has ever lived-so everyone who ever lives gets resurrected!

It occurs to me that 'The Restraunt At The End Of The Universe' would be the ideal setting for resurrecting everyone. See you there Douglas! smiley - smiley

Discuss this Journal entry [1]

Latest reply: May 14, 2001

Death Of Douglas Adamss

Heard the news on teletext yesterday that Douglas Adams had died suddenly of a heart attack in the US. Sad, cause the guy was only 49.

Reading all the messages of condolence around the guide and in the BBC's 'Talking Point' forum. I sent a message to the forum but don't know whether the BBC will post it.

Been thinking recently about 'The Omega Theory' of life-after-death whereby intelligent beings in the far future harness the entire universe to act as a giant computer. They then use this computer to perform a giant simulation of the entire history of the universe and inside this simulation is a simulation of everyone who has ever lived-so everyone who ever lives gets resurrected!

It occurs to me that 'The Restraunt At The End Of The Universe' would be the ideal setting for resurrecting everyone. See you there Douglas! smiley - smiley

Discuss this Journal entry [1]

Latest reply: May 14, 2001


Back to Playboy Reporter's Personal Space Home

Playboy Reporter

Researcher U110017

Work Edited by h2g2

Write an Entry

"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is a wholly remarkable book. It has been compiled and recompiled many times and under many different editorships. It contains contributions from countless numbers of travellers and researchers."

Write an entry
Read more