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

First off, I've been meaning to tell you... that new feature (the subscribing to articles one) confused the hell out of me, being in Brunel, and I accidentally deleted your subscription. Nothing personal, I was just pressing buttons.

Second, maybe you've noticed Pin and I scheming behind the scenes?
Any interest in pushing the boundaries again?

I'd seen your thread was active, but didn't go and lurk.

Have now though. I'm interested in h2g2 not just surviving but thriving, that's for sure. There are some very good posts on your Soul of the Guide journal, btw.

My problem is I have no PR cred. You know, I looked at an entry there earlier, and couldn't comment because my views would have been in conflict with the norm. That's not fair on someone trying to get into the EG.

I don't agree with that. If your views are in conflict with the norm, it's your duty to make your belief known, I think. I guess that would be the motto of the loudmouth, though.

You are resubscribed. Random button pushing can be dangerous you know.

Maybe I should have posted - but I didn't give full context. It would be very difficult for newcomers to the EG to get conflicting advice to that extent. I can't honestly advise them to do what I know will prevent selection or that would end up changed back.

Got to , lunch was interrupted, cut short and is over,
Waz

Hm.
Well, it's interesting really. The researchers who submit technically unsuitable pieces to PR, which are bound for rejection, are either newbies, who don't know better, or oldies, who should know better. It's not good to make a point with newbie entries, because as you say, it's not really fair to the author. It's a harder case to make with oldies' entries, because they can just say 'You should know better'.

I don't know what the answer is to that problem.

No one answer, depends on the circumstances every time.

Might be one reason why reviewing is left to so few shoulders though.

This entry was neat but too slight. It will either be abandoned or grow into a tome with a title as intriguing as a bowl of cold porridge.

Did comment on one today, picked up from info where I couldn't tell if it was AWW or PR.

Mm. I've got a start on a new project. See the Fettered thread if you're interested in that. I explained myself there You like powdered wigs?

http://www.freekidcrafts.com/presidential-powdered-wig.html

Didn't need the fettered thread - there's that handy Subscribed Articles button...

Read both, I think they're really good. What stage are they at - they're not quite finished as essays are they? Do you want comments on detail? If so, where? You don't want too many cooks though.

They were at the stage of not even having been proofread in their final form Comment to your heart's content. I'll try to get back to that tomorrow. If you want to scratch some thoughts on the back of an envelope, about your vision and thoughts, please do that too.

well my main comment would have been they need a bit of structure, a reason for the order you've dealt with them in, and some conclusion on the different parts. But I suspect that's because they're still drafts.

Your latest journal meant a lot. My own and trying a bit more PR involvement is all I think I can do. The Ask thread ... . Just like the Peer Review page threads, I see very little wish to know why so many people are not engaged with the EG and PR. Unless that question comes from inside, I see no prospect of change.

Maybe what you're doing will prompt such questions, but at the moment it's little more than defensive.

I really take my hat off to you opening yourself up for another volley like this, and your equanimity in the face of fire. You took the brunt of the PROD episode.
Waz

The problem with a Why Not approach, is there's not much motivation for anyone happy with the status quo to argue it, and anyone not happy has no argument with the proposal.

Are you still working on the Researcher Papers?

Actually, I'm a bit discouraged with this whole effort, presently.

Your journals blew on some embers, I wouldn't give up on them.

You don't get a feel from talking point threads that there's a mood for more freedom?

I do, but I don't really enjoy getting attacked and ridiculed.

No. Who does. Your opponents didn't leave very good images of themselves if that's any comfort.

It felt bad not supporting, but I couldn't, wouldn't join in Spy's charge of the Light Brigade. Too full on, and too combative. I don't see it as them and us, you know? There's an awful lot of middle ground.

My writing's not guideline challenging, but I do want to write something for the EG. I know what it is but haven't got the angle yet.

I don't think it was combative. Aggressive, yes. Frustrated too.

What's the topic? Email me if you're still kicking it around upstairs.

Yes. It was your thread that was more combative, I was going to post there to say, but left it too long and didn't. The actual article was impassioned and frustrated.

Tomorrow maybe, doubt it's your cup of tea but it's been stupidly bugging me for two months. It's either just flippant or gets very dull and heavy.