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

Hi Hoo,

I've read lots of what you've written, in threads all over this site and almost always I admire and respect what you write BUT your recent post in the Forum F135418?thread=456068 does not please me at all

I'm guessing that it's a swipe at someone specific

However, your comment ("NZ = home to knee-jerk conservative idiots - now, where have I picked up *that* impression before?") is a gross generalisation

I've called NZ home for over half of my life now and I can assure you that compared with the UK, the label conservative is not appropriate

women's suffrage - 1st in the world
nuclear free ports, (= p!ss off Uncle Sam)

I hear what you're saying, and you are indeed correct, it was a swipe at specific people (three or four from the same family, as it happens).

Now that you've reacted to what you *think* I said, look back at what I actually said.

Here's what I *didn't* say: "NZ = full of knee-jerk conservative idiots".

If I'd said that, that would have been a generalisation, and wrong, and offensive. So, a good job I didn't say it.

What I *said* was "NZ = home to knee-jerk conservative idiots."

I trust you notice the difference.

It is NOT a generalisation, it is an observed fact. Unless you're telling me there are NO knee-jerk conservative idiots in NZ AT ALL - but that runs counter to the facts I have.

I'm always very careful to say exactly what I mean. I have no beef with the majority of NZers, any more than I have any beef with the majority of Americans. After all, the majority of Americans DIDN'T vote for Bush. But if I'd said "The USA - home to doctor-murdering loony right-wing anti-abortion fanatics", I'd be right. It might annoy a few Yanks that I've *noticed* their country tolerates and indulges such people, but that doesn't change the facts.

If it annoys you that I've noticed that some NZers are knee-jerk conservatives, I suggest you have a quiet word with some of them about their opinions.

You might like to campaign for an end to the sort of nanny-state censorship that decides for you - an adult - what art is OK for you to see and what isn't (and video games are just as much an art form as film or theatre). While that sort of stuff is still happening, to the outside world the government of NZ looks, to a disinterested outside observer, more like the authoritarian regime in Singapore, say, than any enlightened, rational 21st century democracy.



H.

Hi Hoo,

Thanks for the reply

I can't fault your logic, because semantically its watertight

But I feel you're excusing yourself from what I accused you of with a brush off - 'grammatical correctness'

However, if this is how you want to wriggle it, I challenge you to name one country that is NOT a home to some (ie >1) "knee-jerk conservative idiots"

And if that's too hard, then name a country that is NOT home to some idiots.

OK, I've asked you to read what I wrote again. Now read what *you* wrote again.

"I'm guessing that it's a swipe at someone specific"

I've already told once that you YOU ARE RIGHT.

This was not, is not, and however YOU want to wriggle will never be, a swipe at NZers or NZ *in general*.

I am brushing you off, and I'm going to do it again because *even after I've explained it* you don't seem to want to understand.

So, I'll explain it one more time, just for you. Imagine there's a user of H2G2 who you dislike - perhaps they write enormously long opinionated posts containing bits you don't understand. Suppose that person is English. Suppose another verbose opinionated Englishman makes the news. You could then comment here along the lines of "Hmm, a verbose opinionated man from England, why am I getting deja vu? ".

Are you implying all Englishmen are verbose? Are you implying we're all opinionated? Are you implying that everyone who lives in England is a man? I'm guessing not. You're implying you know *one* other Englishman who shares these characteristics, and are inviting the audience to point and laugh. And if they know who you mean, they might well do just that.

If they don't know who you mean... well, they'll probably have a go at you for generalising about the English. But people are like that. They don't bother to read what people say, much less think about what they mean. They just react. So ever was the world.

If you want to be offended by something, I'm afraid it's going to have to be something else, because although what I said WAS intended as a swipe a particular set of persons, you are not one of them.

Yet.

H.

"To start with: I bought Manhunt, played it to completion and enjoyed it a lot. I did so several months ago, after its initial release to excellent reviews and the initial "storm of media protest", including the news that it was banned completely in New Zealand (NZ = home to knee-jerk conservative idiots - now, where have I picked up *that* impression before?)."

I know exactly what Hoo is talking about here and I don't see any reason to think that it was intended as an attack on New Zealanders in general. Maybe most people would have tried to make it a little clearer what they meant, but, from past experiance with Hoo, I see no reason to think he was trying to attack New Zealand--on the other hand I can see a reason that he might want to be a bit unclear in his phrasing there.

Hi Hoo,

<< I'm always very careful to say exactly what I mean. >>
Perhaps we both need to take more care

I didn't (and still don't) want to antagonise you Hoo, but I think I did, so I apologise

In post 1, I made a point of saying that [[ almost always I admire and respect what you write ]]. But, apparently, my meaning was not clear.

I made the mistake of assuming that having read that, you would understand that my intent wasn't to enter into a hostile debate.

Rather, I simply wanted to point out that on this occasion, your phrasing was ambiguous enough to risk causing offence

'Saying exactly what you mean' is no guarantee of being understood as context often plays a bigger role than content

Despite knowing that you have recently had dealings with the 'family from hell', the context in which I read the word 'home' implied 'source' (as in 'Memphis is the home of the Blues' and 'Greece is the home of democracy')

I know your phrasing was different, but thats how I read it

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure what my motives were - maybe it was the opportunity to enter into a discussion with someone who writes such thought provoking lines as << You might like to campaign for an end to the sort of nanny-state censorship that decides for you - an adult - what art is OK for you to see ... >>

I accept your apology, and offer one of my own for being a bit snappy.

>'Saying exactly what you mean' is no guarantee of being understood "

Ain't that the truth. I like to use it as a kind of filter. I say exactly what I mean, then I look to see if people respond to what I said, or what they *think* I said. I can then interact with them accordingly. An impressively high number of people on h2g2 respond to what I *say*, which is to say they read what I say and think about what it means before replying. That's probably why I like the place and am still posting here after four years.

H.

Cheers H, and thanks - I'm only too happy to accept your apology

I look forward to reading your posts and maybe replying to them on occasion too

Your comment about censorship of the arts in NZ lead me to dig up last months sensation (aka news) about a Creative NZ (ie state) funded entry in the 2005 Venice biennale

As the artist is (in)famous for creating a work featuring a porta-loo that emits the sound of a braying donkey, the tabloid/gutter press leapt into action and demanded the head of the Minister of Arts, who just happens to be the PM

Her response (from memory) was that it is not the role of the state to censor art

six 7s, it was a snipe at me and my family, as it happens... It is an example of Hoo's usual way of intereacting here, as is the fact of his ignorance of the fact that none of us are either ignorant or conservative!
*Especially*, we are not conservative!

Oh, and I note - we're "the family from Hell". What's *that* about? Apparition is one of his other targets, and I am sure you, six 7s, wouldn't regard him in that way, would you?

"none of us are either ignorant or conservative!"

And yet, surprise surprise, yet another person with no axe to grind instantly recognised you and your family from that description. And yet again, you fail to take the lesson of this fact to heart, and simply come back with the same feeble protestations that "it ain't so".

Della/Adele/Adelaide/Annie/Debbie: I don't know you. I know little about you. All I have to go on is what you post here. That goes for everyone on h2g2 - except other members of your family, and the mysterious Bain, of course. Based on that information - information provided BY YOU in the course of your postings here - I and more than a few others have concluded, ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE, that you are ignorant, and you are basically conservative. This is not a coincidence, or a conspiracy, any more than it is a conspiracy that people on here generally consider me verbose, intelligent, arrogant and opinionated. I'm not predisposed to think of people as either ignorant or conservative.

Now, we may at some point change our opinion of you - I'm an open-minded chap. But you must understand that this will only happen if the evidence before us changes. And it shows no signs of doing so far. And there's a LOT of evidence for.

My advice to you would be to embrace the ignorant conservative tag, since you seem unable to modify your behaviour enough to change it. Many people are quite happy being ignorant conservatives, and live their whole lives that way. Many people are PROUD to be ignorant conservatives . Why aren't you?



"we're "the family from Hell". What's *that* about?"

Is this a serious question? Don't you know?

"I am sure you... wouldn't regard [Apparition] in that way, would you?"

Are you having trouble reading, now, Della/Adele/Debbie/Annie/Adelaide? That's what the guy said. I assume he said it 'cos he meant it. Are you learning ANYTHING from this yet?

H.

Della,

I can't believe that you would assume that I would have any respect for Apparition after the events of the last few months

If you cast your mind back, you will recall that you knew that I knew something weird was happening within hours of the whole sordid affair coming to light - I posted a message of 'support' - FFM72190?thread=178765&skip=1000&show=20#p5183314


Shortly afterwards, I read your death threat _and_ I also read posts where other researchers tried to reassure you that it was highly unlikely that anyone would/could have gained unauthorised access to the dna/h2g databases in order to corrupt the U page of anyone AND that even if that had happened then the Italics would deal with it - in other (subtler) words, they were saying stop being so paranoid and look closer to home for the source of your anguish

Apparition had dropped in my esteem well over a year before when he started posting inane, ignorant and insulting twaddle on the Kia Ora G'day thread - a thread, like this one, that I started and, you might notice, one that I have not contributed much to (nothing since the post referred to above) ever since your family started bullying people - including, I see with dismay, kea - someone obviously intelligent and caring

So I'm not exactly pleased to see you here on this thread - although I'm not surprised as you seem to have developed a reputation as a stalker - but I would appreciate it if you were to unsubscribe - or at least desist from posting

six7s

Well, I confess, I have just had one helluva shock! For starters, <,you seem to have developed a reputation as a stalker >>
I have such a reputation? That's the first I knew of it! Well, sir/Madam, I don't want to bother or harass you, so I'm off - have a nice time!
But not before I answer one or two points...
<>
First, note that I changed my name some months ago. For such intelligent people as you and Hoo/Member/Number/Bill claim to be, that seems very hard for you to grasp...
Second, what do you know of the events of the last few months? No, don't bother answering that... Your mind is made up, and facts won't change it, evidently.
<< he started posting inane, ignorant and insulting twaddle on the Kia Ora G'day thread - a thread, like this one, that I started and, you might notice, one that I have not contributed much to (nothing since the post referred to above) ever since your family started bullying people>>
What twaddle would that be, then? No, I didn't notice you'd stopped contributing to that thread - I thought it had died.
As far as bullying people - get real! We do not bully people! And Kea... what can I say? We had a disagreement about Ursula K Le Guin. We had words, I apologised, but she had already packed a sad and unsubscribed from her "peace offering" thread (which by the way, has been taken over by Hoo and his little friends.)
I am shocked, but not at all surprised.
Adelaide (not Della, not any more.)

"I have such a reputation? That's the first I knew of it!"

Well, you know now. Get used to it. (I note you have unsubscribed, but I have little doubt that you will be reading this because... well, you know why, now. )

"First, note that I changed my name some months ago. ...that seems very hard for you to grasp..."

We grasp it perfectly well, Della/Adele/Adelaide/Debbie/Annie: it's just that if someone comes to know you under a name, they tend to continue to associate that name with you - even if you try to evade responsibility for what you've done under that name. *That* seems very hard for *you* to grasp, but that doesn't surprise me at all.

"Second, what do you know of the events of the last few months? No, don't bother answering that..."

Good call. The answer may have proved inconvenient for you. However, I may remind you that the events fo the last few months are still available for anyone with any interest to read. That's how this site works - d'you see? You can't pretend you didn't say and do things - they're still here to haunt you. Like the name Della, in a way.

"Your mind is made up, and facts won't change it, evidently."

This is what psychiatrists call "projection". You, Della/Adele/Adelaide/Debbie/Annie are projecting YOUR behaviour onto six7s. There is a person on this thread who is narrow-minded, dogmatic and not amenable to facts. However, it's not me, and it's not six7s.

Inconveniently for you, the facts are visible for anyone to see. And six7s, who has no axe to grind, has examined the evidence and reached a conclusion, without any prompting from me, or blicky, or az, or Ferret. This is NOT a conspiracy, Della/Adele/Adelaide/Debbie/Annie. This is one person after another after another INDEPENDENTLY coming to the same conclusion about you. Think about that.

"As far as bullying people - get real! We do not bully people!"

Once again for the hard of thinking: saying it ain't so don't make it not so.

Try, for once in your life, to not just knee-jerk deny something. Try, for once in your life, to reflect on WHY they might think that.

If YOU get real, you will consider why it is that your currency here on h2g2 is so devalued. And don't blame me, or blicky, or az. We simply don't have that kind of influence.

Finally, I'm amused by the phrase "packed a sad".

H.

What fascinates me about this is the way in which different people *spontaniously* come to similar conclusions about 'the family from hell'.

(First of all, let me say that I came here because I was stalking Hoo, he is one of the folks whose conversations I check out one in a while, and he had just changed his name, hence my interest).

Adeleide, I was vaguely aware of the history up until recently, but only vaguely. To be honest I tended to discount it, because I have seen Hoo take a snit on before, and have disagreed with him in public and in private about some of his targets and some of his approaches. I talk to other people who were involved one way or another, but so intermittantly that I was unaware of a second trimester pregnancy for example).

So - I was only aware of the problems in the very vaguest of terms, I wasn't particularly interested in them, and I didn't connect them with you, who I associated with that conversation about Christianity and reincarnation, where you came across as cutely dippy, in a nice way.

Then we went into the Ursula K LeGuin conversation, and I reacted honestly to your posts.

You made sweeping statements - fair enough, but then took a request for clarification as an attack.

It wasn't. I genuinely wanted to understand how you had arrived at your conclusions. How is that an attack?

It doesn't matter to me *what* people think. I have friends who are members of the SWP and friends who are (sterling) millionaires. I have friends who are vegans and friends who hunt. If you put all my friends in a room, then you have to make sure that there is a medic around to suture the wounds.

I am however endlessly curious about *how* people think, and the reason I like and respect all those folks is that they have reasons, good reasons which they have explained, for thinking the way that they do. I disagree with a lot of them, but I can understand their reasoning.

Now this is the point.

Your response to my genuine expression of interest, a genuine expression of interest which has led me to ask the same question ("why do you say that?") of 90% of the people I have had direct conversations with on this site, your response was unique.

You took it as an attack. I cannot think of anyone off hand, (with two exceptions, both of whom subsequently calmed down and explained their thinking), who takes the question "why do you say that?" as an attack.

As a result, I - entirely spontaniously, and without the influence of any other researcher - came to the conclusion that... Ach what does it matter what I concluded?

If the evidence starts to point the other way, I will revise my conclusions.

Adeleide.

Get this.

The common denominator is not a conspiracy.

The common denominator is you.

B

Della,

Who the hell is Bill?


az

Cant we do ALL this on one thread it takes me ages to get round it all?

Im expecting to see an ask thread about genetic privacy form you SIS

Did I miss something, blicky? I almost started one about Prozac in the drinking water . . .

* s off to recheck the Observer*.


az

ps
I agree with blicky about not spreading this all over the place, specifically not on my Teaching Atheism thread. Thanking you all in advance . . .

Honesty, Hoo, if you have nothing better to do then why not help me out with this Opus Dei guy on the god thread? Andrew. He is so slippery and slidy and slimy that he avoids all direct questions asked of him. He also thinks I am really 'small potatoes' and that he can make fun of me and my intelligence because . . . oh, I don't know, because he seems to think he can see into the Pope's mind?

Mind, he is also side-stepping all direct questions from Fathom, Alji and Noggin. So I guess it's not just me.

I just saw you'd shown up there, on the god thread, the other day.

It's rare that I ever hate anything. But I find I do hate organizations like Opus. I've had quite a bit of experience with them here in Spain and also with people here who are totally against them. Even Catholics who want nothing to do with them.

Anyhow, just thought I'd ask for a bit of back up.

az

And I have just found this:

F1784563?thread=452459

Why was Andrew so keen on nobody 'asking questions' about what he had written?



az