Absolutely 100% true...
Posted Sep 6, 2001
...conversation from work today.
Colleague: 'You know that French girl I've been seeing?'
Colleague: 'I think she dumped me last night'
Me: 'You think?'
Colleague: 'Well, I don't speak French...'
It made my day, anyway.
Posted Aug 25, 2001
(Socioh-loj-ize) (made up word) similar to 'philosophise', but completely fictional.
Well, that's it, another exam out of the way, the last until February, I think. And, fingers crossed, that's me back on track for going into the second year of my course a year from now. I apologise to anyone I've been rude to by ignoring them - but I've been desperately trying to revise, and I'm completely out of practise. The exam seemed to go fine - I was writing almost constantly for the two hour duration, so it only remains to be seen whether or not I was writing nonsense or not.
I reserve particular apologies for the Film Composers project team, and especially The Prophet. I offered to produce one entry - that's just one, by the way, a single entry - and I failed, miserably. Let's just hope that's all I failed this month...
Posted Aug 7, 2001
Yesterday, I posted an aside to a thread about advertising. My comment was about a certain fast food restaurant, and the quality of the food. This comment was hidden almost immediately, first on a temporary basis, and then permanently. An email from h2g2 then stated that the problem was that contained 'potentially libellous or defamatory material'. Obviously, I cannot repeat my comments, but if you read Eric Schlosser's 'Fast Food Nation', that's where my information came from.
I'm not angry at the BBC, nor do I want to rush off and join the Zaphodista movement. My freedom of speech, I feel, has been violated, but not because of the BBC. The problem lies elsewhere, with the law. UK libel law is unique, in that it based around the principle of guilty until proven innocent. The burden of proof lies with the media - they have to prove what they say. This may seem like a fair point - why should the media have the right to say what they want without backing it up? - but the main benificiaries of such a system are those with legal muscle. Corporations like the one I criticised. And if a newspaper, television channel, or online forum is frightened to publish material that could result in a libel case, then that must impact somewhat on the freedom of the press. It is indirect censorship. In our times, when it is slowly being realised just how much power the global corporations wield, is it necessary for them to be so protected by such a law?
In an ideal society, the media would provide constructive criticism of those in power, not just the government. It's becoming increasingly apparent that a lot of power is being 'devolved' to business, and so these institutions need to be examined just as closely as our parliament need to be.
Sorry if this turned into a quite a rant, but I'd just liek to reiterate that my problem is not with h2g2. I think that the moderators made the right decision - it would be silly to sacrifice the whole of this community for the sake of one post, correct or not. But it is worrying that the moderators should have to make such a decision to protect h2g2.
Episode 4 : A new approach
Posted Jul 7, 2001
Right, now I've got this new GuideML editor thingy, I'm going to edit my entries off-line, and paste them in when finished. So no more embarrassing shabby, half-finished articles. Maybe.
Posted Jul 2, 2001
Did some more work on the House Rabbits entry - it's difficult finding the time