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

"Her current disinterest in the matter may be a feigned/studied one (for obvious personal reasons) as much as a genuine one."

The point is SEF you don't know, therefore there is no point in making accusations against her.

There was no "assumptive statement" in 186. You may want there to be one but that doesn't alter the fact that there wasn't one. Reality distortion is another feature common to creationists.

Peta (as U24) unsubscribed - a fact which I verified before posting since many people round here say it without doing it.

Doing so does not stop her following the conversation - another fact but one which people often overlook.

*I* found it significant that Peta didn't deny that Symphony was banned given the reasons I have for believing that S's account is banned and given P's previous serious involvement on the "crime" of being LeKZ.

"therefore there is no point in making accusations against her"

It wasn't an accusation, but a statement of fact and one which I found significant. The reasoning behind Peta's choice to post and what to post or not post is another matter. I notice that you don't call H's speculations accusations.

I'm a creationist now am I? Well, you learn something new every day...


So, assuming there was significance in a statement is not assumptive?

Me personally, I'd agree with H on this one, when there's a perfectly logical reason for a posting why look for more sinister ones... unless of course conspiracy theories really are what you're into?

Back to Roswell anyone?

Hmmmm terribly sorry SEF I did not mean what I said as any kind of insult.

I don't know whether you are a creationist or not. I merely note that you share many characteristics with the ones who foolishly post on the Science boards - eg deliberately dishonest misrepresentation of the facts and other people's views. It happens to be extremely obvious over there at the moment, making me aware of the similarities, but I realise that you may not see the relevance since it isn't in your own backlog.

H has recently made it clear that he is starting from the assumption that nothing has happened and that therefore there is nothing to explain. That does rather colour his own arguments from that point onwards. I, on the other hand, *know* something has happened though I can't vouch for the reasons. I've also seen recent similar omissions of evidence which were significant in another thread. Strangely enough (not!) so has H but he seems to be ignoring that.

I can't really know what you meant at the time, Ferrettbadger, but at least I don't see you indulging in the same dishonesty as the others.

Incidentally, I notice the nickname change. It finally got too hot for you then?

Lets just say I need an Icecream!

.

"H has recently made it clear that he is starting from the assumption that nothing has happened and that therefore there is nothing to explain."

I have done no such thing, SEF, you creationistoid reality distorter you.

"That does rather colour his own arguments from that point onwards."

Many things colour my arguments, but one thing that does not is the assumption that nothing has happened. I made the point, however, that the only evidence we have is this thread, and ONE person's report of the experience of another.

We've had nothing from Symphony, who is not banned person, no copies of correspondence, NOTHING from the Eds AT ALL. I'm not suggesting nothing's happened. I'm just pointing out that the evidence that anything has happened is remarkably slight.

"I, on the other hand, *know* something has happened"

How, may I ask? Are you in direct touch with Symphony? Have you seen copies of the emails she has presumably received from the Eds? Or are you in direct touch with the Eds, and have they confirmed to you officially that she's banned? Just curious how you *know*.

"though I can't vouch for the reasons. I've also seen recent similar omissions of evidence which were significant in another thread. Strangely enough (not!) so has H but he seems to be ignoring that."

Or I might have forgotten, since I have no idea what you're alluding to. Clues?

Oh, and one more thing...

Since this thread was and is a load of redundant w*nk until Symphony gets off her a**e and provides some actual evidence she's not LeKZ, could someone please rattle my cage if/when that eventually happens? Until then

Ok, CHILL OUT FOLKS!

(and as I write this, there's an unsubscription.)

CZ taking a walk until things cool down.

From Post 156:
"1. There is currently no information available at h2g2 to suggest that Symphony has made any attempt to prove she's not who she says she's not.
2. There is currently no information available at h2g2 to suggest that she has been officially banned, other than her non-presence and Mistdancer's announcement here. This is, to say the least, odd, unless Symphony has ticked the box marked "no publicity", in which case, why this thread?

Either way, until more information is forthcoming on both the above, I would respectfully suggest that there really is nothing to see here... move along.

H."

I take that as a fairly clear indication (coupled with a StarWars reference which to some degree undermines the intent of the other statements) that you do not believe there is any ban.

On your point 1, I already explained that if Symphony is banned then she can't post to say what she has done. The last thing she did do was comply with a direct request from the staff: F126901?thread=298616

What I failed to remark on before was your reference to a box marked no publicity in point 2. I was not aware of such a box but then I have never been banned according to the proper procedure whereas the backlog indicates that you have.

I already said that I have my own reason for believing Symphony to be banned and that I'm not going to say why. I am not in direct or indirect contact with Symphony as far as I know. I suppose she could already be operating another ID which I have unknowingly seen around or for that matter Symphony could be the man with a dog whom I spoke to this morning on my way back from Tesco. I don't know whether I know her or not and I rate it as statistically unlikely. I haven't seen any emails about the subject. I have been in email contact with the Eds before but not about this at all.

Clues: FB vs EdPol

Someone rattled my cage already...

"I have never been banned according to the proper procedure whereas the backlog indicates that you have."

The reference to a box marked "no publicity" was sarcasm. They obviously don't have it on your planet. They appear not to have adequate comprehension of English, since the backlog (and my continued presence here) indicates that I have not, ever, even temporarily, been banned from h2g2. I have suffered a problem with the servers which I misinterpreted as a ban (since I was on premod at the time). But I've never had the honour of being banned.

Wrong again.

Getting used to it?

You repeatedly claimed you had been banned and it wasn't something I could verify for myself. That is what I meant by the backlog indicating that you had - ie your own backlog. You made it! "Indicate" is a very weak word in terms of describing evidence. I chose it quite deliberately to show that I was not ascribing much credence to your account but couldn't rule it out as an accident of some sort especially given your variable usage of the word ban.

For example, one of the joint accounts which I joined but didn't start was inadvertantly banned in the premod sense. This was done by a member of staff who was not following proper procedure. This ban was subsequently and repeatedly denied by another member of staff while still being visibly in force. You should also be aware of that piece of backlog since you posted there.

PS My "I was not aware of such a box" was also intended as sarcasm but I thought you might get it. I was again quite careful to put it in such a way as to not offend you if you had genuinely meant it but I see that such effort is completely wasted when you are determined to be obnoxious. I will try in future not to bother fitting in with your own version of English usage or worry about not offending you.

I'm obviously just bouncing this up my own conversation list since everyone else has unsubscribed.

Plot summary so far:
Now several days on with no further update about Symphony - still apparently banned but never posted much anyway and can presumably still view the site. So perhaps there's not much difference to concern anyone apart from the principles of truth and justice possibly being trampled (again)?

In tonight's episode:
A full moon causes one of the clones to turn into a were-wolf but since the other actors had gone out to party the only evidence was more hairs on the furniture than normal.

Coming next:
The morning after the night before - or - who chewed the slippers and dug up a skeleton.

SEF,

Regarding post 200, where you say "The most offensive content of the XXX post seemed to me to be about Peta (or her children)..."

While I'd rather that this conversation stay on the topic of the Symphony ban, reather than rehash the LeKZ ban, i do feel the need to ask that you re-read both the X post, which is what LeKZ posted and Post 1 of the lifetime suspension thread, where the Editors posted something that replaced most of the Xs with other letters. The only comment you will see about Ms. Haigh's children is a call for devine intervention on their behalf. That's hardly offensive content about the children.

"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - V. I. Lenin

0

Yes, I didn't mean to offend anyone myself on that count and probably should have omitted the bracketed part entirely but part of the offence taken at the time was allegedly because the XXX post mentioned the children at all. It wasn't exactly laid out in a "this part is unacceptable because of this house rule" sort of way.

Incidentally, since you've interrupted the soap opera now anyway. Would you care to add an instalment yourself? Or possibly just a commercial break to go with your thought for the day/night.

Here's a (very) short installment.

I emailed the Editors, asking how long they were going to allow this farce to continue. The significant portion of their response was "Moderation decisions are confidential, and in this case can only be discussed with Symphony."

0