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

Just wanted you to know that I just came across the stupidest post in H2G2 history. I thought you'd be interested:

"If you study the quote carefully you'll notice that the phrase "savagely raped" appears nowhere in it. If the words I actually used upset you then we can talk about that, but otherwise I fail to see why I should defend a phrase you've coined and subsequently attributed to me. I suspect that if I misquoted you and then refused to admit it, you'd reach an even higher plane of self-righteous indignation than the one you're currently on."

The author is such a dimwit so removed from all common sense that he actually argued based on a slim difference between "savagely raped" and "shameless rape." This poster can only be one of the type who crams his head full of useless trivia for the sole purpose of showing up his fellow man whenever possible, in order to make his own pathetic, lonely existence appear to have worth. This sort of brain is the kind that can recite esoteric facts at will, but cannot operate a simple wristwatch without detailed instructions (instructions he would probably correct for grammar and complain to the manufacturer).

You know the kind of person I mean?

You know, you should probably turn yourself into the police right now. If you think that savage rape is something worth getting upset over, but shameless rape is completely acceptable, then you are a danger to society, and you should be behind bars. You'll get the opportunity to explore the difference between the two.

Sorry for not getting back to you earlier, I've been spending a few days at the beach.

Thank you for providing me with the best laugh I've had today. If you want to find out how to write sarcasm or vitriol in a way that upsets the recipient more than it upsets you, please let me know and I'll happily put you in touch with a group that specialises in developing that kind of thing. In broad terms the writing's not tight enough: there's too much repetition, and while the second post has a couple of nice touches, better editing could have got those into the first post without wrecking the flow of the piece. You should also put in a little more creative effort when it comes to character assassination, as, for example, pathetic and lonely are too clichéed to have any real impact on the modern reader. Don't be too downcast though: as a first draft it shows promise, and with the right guidance I'm sure you can work it up into a nice little bit of invective.

Character assassination? Whatever do you mean? I certainly never said "pathetic and lonely," so you must be talking about someone else.

Logic is another thing you need to brush up on, but one step at a time. I'm not aware of any seminars solely dedicated to explaining the use of quotation marks as it's a subject generally presumed to have been covered at the time one's just about grasped the art of not soiling oneself, so if you have any questions about how to use them or what they mean, please post them here.

When you've learned how not to soil yourself, then, let me know.

Hmm, I was afraid of this. It's not your fault, of course, it's a function of the cultural climate you were brought up in, but don't be fooled into believing that descending to a juvenile level of catcalling works in this context: there's no infantile peer group around you to impress, so your efforts are entirely wasted, as the only person you could possibly impress would be yourself and that would only work if you rely on the - obviously - specious subsumption that you're some kind of intellectually subnormal troglodyte who values that kind of thing.

Remember that you're the morally and intellectually superior one and act accordingly. Let the other guy stoop to kindergarten-grade behaviour and show himself for what he truly is.

Boys, boys . . . don't you have anything better to do? Like, for example, get your photos together for the gallery?




az

"Remember that you're the morally and intellectually superior one" - I'm glad we've finally established that. Maybe there is hope for you. And if I could get that apology I am owed rather than the childish semantics I've been offered in its place, you would be left in peace.

Am I not in peace? When did this happen? I find you moderately amusing. When that ceases to be the case, I'll just ignore you, but if you're only here to fish for an apology you've decided is yours by some kind of divine right then you're going about it in entirely the wrong way and I'm afraid I'm going to get bored rather quickly. Regardless of the outcome my peace will remain unsullied. As I have alluded to before on more than one occasion, if you want an explanation of why your indignation is misplaced - and, of course, an opportunity to dispute my reasoning - then I'm perfectly willing to do that. Being wrong or admitting to it holds no fear for me whatsoever. Are you sure you can say the same?

Can you reference one post where you admitted you were wrong?

*sigh*

As a disinterested observer I have to say that Mycroft seems to have the upper hand in the sense that he is not being even remotely emotional.


az

Az: That's part of the problem... Mycroft has never been remotely emotional. He's a robot. He seems to lack a fundamental ability to understand human emotion (and a fundamental ability to admit when he is wrong that we are just beginning to explore). Therefore, he does not understand why what he said to me in that other thread was offensive, or why I should be angry at him for it.

In any case, we really don't need a scorekeeper...

I'm not scorekeeping, Blatherskite. If you lurk a bit you'll see I started a similar conversation here on Mycroft's page because of a thread where he seemed more intent on ripping me to pieces than actually reading what I was saying.

Well, if you prefer me not to comment anymore I shall just sit back and lurk.

See ya!


az

I've said I was wrong on many threads on many occasions, but I've no interest in digging them up as I see it serving no useful purpose, but I'm open to persuasion on the subject if you think it's so important. I don't recall ever seeing you admit you've been wrong either, but I'm not going to start jumping up and down about how my own apathy proves the hypothesis.

I understand perfectly well why you think you're entitled to be offended, but I also understand perfectly well why that's entirely down to a misunderstanding on your part, which, on the basis of subsequent postings by you, appears to be a deliberate and disingenuous one.

Your inability to provoke any emotion in me other than mild amusement isn't something from which you can extrapolate anything meaningful about my overall emotional range. It's a very egocentric perspective and says a good deal more about you than it does about me. As I said before, if you want to know why you're wrong, I'll tell you. Who knows? You may be able to show me why I'm completely wrong and then I'll have learnt something. That would definitely be worth sticking around for.

Otherwise I've no inclination to feign outrage at your attempted goadings just so you can derive a few crumbs of satisfaction from it. In all honesty, I just don't think you're cut out for this kind of thing. True, tenacity and intelligence (albeit of a rather blinkered sort, on present limited evidence) are in your favour, but you're simply terrible at writing in an inflammatory style. It's not pitiable yet, but it's heading that way, so I'm likely to get bored of it, and you're likely to get increasingly frustrated, or worse yet, humiliated, none of which is in either of our interests. That you haven't got the knack of offending down pat speaks well of you as a person because it shows you're not intrinsically malicious, but it means you've got an exceptionally steep learning curve to overcome before you get anything out of it. Why not try something else?

"I understand perfectly well why you think you're entitled to be offended, but I also understand perfectly well why that's entirely down to a misunderstanding on your part, which, on the basis of subsequent postings by you, appears to be a deliberate and disingenuous one."

Did you make any effort to clear up the misunderstanding? I gave you plenty of opportunities before I showed up here. If anything, you're the one who misunderstood, taking my hypothesis on Bradbury's position as if it were my own, when I said nothing to suggest it was the case. When pointed to this blatantly obvious fact, you ignorantly and foolishly stuck to your abuse. To what purpose, I can't say, though it looked to me like an arrogant git trying to save face in public.

As for "deliberate and disingenuous"... what possible motive could I have? What's in it for me?

"As I said before, if you want to know why you're wrong, I'll tell you. Who knows? You may be able to show me why I'm completely wrong and then I'll have learnt something. That would definitely be worth sticking around for." - I'm not wrong. And I've already made several attempts to show you why you are wrong, but you've chosen to ignore them.

"Otherwise I've no inclination to feign outrage at your attempted goadings just so you can derive a few crumbs of satisfaction from it. In all honesty, I just don't think you're cut out for this kind of thing. True, tenacity and intelligence (albeit of a rather blinkered sort, on present limited evidence) are in your favour, but you're simply terrible at writing in an inflammatory style. It's not pitiable yet, but it's heading that way, so I'm likely to get bored of it, and you're likely to get increasingly frustrated, or worse yet, humiliated, none of which is in either of our interests. That you haven't got the knack of offending down pat speaks well of you as a person because it shows you're not intrinsically malicious, but it means you've got an exceptionally steep learning curve to overcome before you get anything out of it. Why not try something else?."

You're making several errors here:

1) Pretending to know my motives
2) Pretending to know my emotional state
3) Pretending to know how much I care about you, this exchange, or this site

But then, I've seen enough of your pretension to last me some time.

Of course, I also see straight through this feigned indifference... if you really cared this little, you wouldn't be posting this much. I, on the other hand, have a full workday and not much work, so this'll do for a distraction.

I also like the way you suggest that you are superior in inflammatory writing, as if you haven't done it yet, but could do so far better than you're doing now. Do you mean to suggest you are "intrinsically malicious?"