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

Amused:

F71014?thread=526284&skip=16

Especially... "I am an extreme pacifist - I have often said (and meant) that I would die rather than defend myself with a gun or similar. But that is a decision I can make only for myself. Luckily my children are grown up, and I have never had to face the situation of having to defend their lives!"

Passing on their "serious" death threats, on the other hand, does not conflict with "extreme pacifist" principles, though.

H.

I never saw the original death threat (it was already removed by the time I got to the thread). So I've never been sure just how "serious" it was. I understand that the Editors had to take it seriously. I'm just not sure how serious it was in reality (as opposed to potentially) given that Della and Apparition live on the other side of the world from blicky.

Was anyone actually worried that they might take action? Or was it more the principle of the thing?

Why the hell are you lurking around her personal space, reading conversation which have nothing whatsoever to do with you, and then posting an out-of-context commentary on a completely unconnected thread, the mere existence of which is unfortunate, and to which people with no connection to the original conversation are subscribed?

Furthermore, it is OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain that it wasn't Della who posted the original 'death-threat' comment. Hell, it wasn't even her style. Now you imply that she 'passed on' the comment, something which she flatly denies and for which there is no evidence -- presenting it as fact, therefore, is LYING:

'Passing on their "serious" death threats, on the other hand, does not conflict with "extreme pacifist" principles, though.'

She passed nothing on. She has explained the situation. If you don't believe it, fine, but it's about time you shut up and put up. It was, after all, over half a year ago.

Let's see what the House Rules have to say about this sort of behavior?


'Please, no flaming or trolling. On h2g2, flaming means posting something that's angry and mean-spirited... Trolls say deliberately provocative things just to stir up trouble - it's not polite, so please don't do it. h2g2 is an incredibly friendly place, so please help to keep it that way.'

'Mean-spirited?' Check. It's a flame.

'Deliberately provocative?' 'Just to stir up trouble?' Check. This is trolling.


'Unlawful, harassing, defamatory, *abusive*, threatening, harmful, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, racially offensive, or otherwise objectionable material is not acceptable... All the types of content above break these House Rules.'

'Abusive?' Check. House rules say it's unacceptable on that count too. As a matter of fact, I'd go so far as to say that continuing this conversation in the first place is abusive, considering its title.


This is abusive behavior. It's also not far from cyber-stalking. Last, but not least, it's incredibly sad.

You're obviously very smart. When do you plan on growing up? Get out of the sandpit and, as I suggested, let's leave this alone. Stop reviving a dead issue.

There are house rules on h2g2 prevent people saying nasty things to each other. At the end of the day, there's really very, very little you can do to someone via this medium that matters very much. Sure, you can call them names or whatever, but does it *matter*?

If I'm black and you call me "n*gg*r", I may be offended, but does it *matter*? If I'm white and you call me "w*gg*r", does it matter? Either would show that you're a nasty racist piece of work, but it's hardly earth shattering. (Incidentally, if I were BLACK, but you called me "w*gg*r", in addition to showing you to be a nasty racist git, it also shows you to be an incorrigible dullard... purely hypothetically, of course )

However, as far as I can imagine, the one and only serious thing you can do on here is to *threaten* action in the real world. And if you threaten that action, and you reiterate that you are *not* kidding and that you are serious, then that threat should be treated just as seriously as if you had said it to the victim in person. And if that threat is to kill someone, you're in the realms of something that, if you did it in the UK, you could actually be arrested and prosecuted for.

After all, it's all very well to say "Oh well they live on the other side of the world" or whatever, but how do YOU know what resources Della and her family have access to? How do you know she doesn't have a brother or cousin living in blicky's home town who would be prepared to do him a physical injury at her urging? You don't, and neither does anyone else. Which is why threats like that HAVE to be taken seriously.

For comparison, if I got in a row with someone who lived in Columbus Ohio, or Seattle, or Melbourne, I could, if I *really* wanted to, arrange to have a relative of mine pay them a personal visit. How do you or I know Della is not in a position to do the same? (Obviously we can't take her word for it - her reputation for honesty is not exactly spotless).

To my mind, threatening to kill someone is about the most serious thing it's possible to do in the limited medium that is h2g2. It's right up there with posting links to child porn. That someone could get away with it and not only escape a lifetime ban, but without even being put on premoderation boggles my mind even now.

H.

" it is OBVIOUS to anyone with a brain that it wasn't Della who posted the original 'death-threat' comment."



I'm sorry, I don't understand. Jimster made it crystal clear that posting originated from her account. Della herself has described the situation: her son made the threat, verbally, and she typed in what he had said and posted it.

This much I had assumed was beyond dispute.

Now you are saying Della did NOT post the threat? On what evidence do you make this assertion, please, given that several people saw the threat before it was removed and that Jimster has made the point that it was Della's account that the posting originated from?

"Now you imply that she 'passed on' the comment, something which she flatly denies"



Again, I don't understand. She denies many things, but one thing she does not deny, one thing she herself tried to use as an excuse, is that although the threat was posted from HER account (for which she is responsible), the person who actually originated the threat was her son. I do not "imply" that she passed it on. I repeat her version of events, which explicitly state that she passed on the threat from him using her account.

Again, I thought these facts were accepted and beyond dispute. If you have additional evidence which contradicts this version of events, I should be fascinated to see it.

H.

>>After all, it's all very well to say "Oh well they live on the other side of the world" or whatever, but how do YOU know what resources Della and her family have access to? How do you know she doesn't have a brother or cousin living in blicky's home town who would be prepared to do him a physical injury at her urging? You don't, and neither does anyone else. Which is why threats like that HAVE to be taken seriously.<<

Which is why I understand that the Eds had to take it seriously. That and the fact that even if Della/Ap weren't capable of carrying out the threat it's still not acceptable to make it.

I guess it's going to be hard for me to understand until I read the actual post (someone has offered to email it to me, but I've not bothered yet).

And I suppose it's also hard not to think that the threat was the perfect weapon to hand to the Anti Della fan club, that could be used against her forever.

I do hear though that it was a very serious thing for you, and it's good to have your perspective on it. I should ask blicky for his too.

Do you have a link to that thread (where the threat was made)? I was looking for it and couldn't find it.

Jordan, given that you've made a pretty good case for Hoo having broken the House Rules, if you really wanted this thread to cease wouldn't it make more sense to yikes the offending post?

The Italics have said that they will take broader action if people continue in this manner, so you do have some options open if you really want the whole thing to end (or at least change).

Personally I think both sides are as bad as each other, which is why the whole thing alternates between being somewhat entertaining and generally annoying.

kea,

So far as I recall, the original posting was from Apparition (U180630), and went something like:

'I'm so angry with you I can hardly type, angry angry stuff, if you were sitting here right now I would kill you, I mean this seriously, more angry angry stuff.'

I can't actually remember if it was aimed at Blicky or Member, I suspect it was the former because he seemed to be the primary recipient of Appy's wrath... If anyone has the original text then it would be helpful, but it's probably against the House Rules to post it, and I confess I'd be shocked if anyone had retained it for so long. The original has now been hidden, you see.

Now, the clincher, which gave birth to the infamous 'Death-threat Della,' was that he posted from Della's account. As anyone who allows another Hootooer onto their computer (eg. Hoovooloo, who has accidentally posted rather scathing comments, addressed at Della, from his girlfriend's account) can tell you, it's easily possible to post something from the wrong account by accident.


Hoo:

'There are house rules on h2g2 prevent people saying nasty things to each other. At the end of the day, there's really very, very little you can do to someone via this medium that matters very much. Sure, you can call them names or whatever, but does it *matter*?'

Sure it doesn't matter on the grand scale of things, but it remains that there are rules, which we are expected to honour. Indeed, you expressly agreed to follow them when you signed up.


(Incidentally, if I were BLACK, but you called me "w*gg*r", in addition to showing you to be a nasty racist git, it also shows you to be an incorrigible dullard... purely hypothetically, of course )

Of course, HooMember.

In case anyone doesn't get it, Hoo was making an allusion to a comment made quite a while ago (about a year, actually), and I was responding in the same vein -- don't worry about it.


'After all, it's all very well to say "Oh well they live on the other side of the world" or whatever, but how do YOU know what resources Della and her family have access to? How do you know she doesn't have a brother or cousin living in blicky's home town who would be prepared to do him a physical injury at her urging? You don't, and neither does anyone else. Which is why threats like that HAVE to be taken seriously.'

So your contention revolves around the presumption that Della, or her teenage child, has an international terrorist network capable of discovering an anonymous researcher's location and knocking them off?

But seriously, I think the 'potential' Appy has for actively harming someone is quite limited, and if he later admits to the moderators (or even to his 'target') that he has no intention of hunting someone down and disposing of them, shouldn't he get the benefit of the doubt? Unless you're willing to give it in the former case rather than the other, which would go against all the evidence.


'To my mind, threatening to kill someone is about the most serious thing it's possible to do in the limited medium that is h2g2. It's right up there with posting links to child porn. That someone could get away with it and not only escape a lifetime ban, but without even being put on premoderation boggles my mind even now.'

The problem is, I half agree - a 'death threat' is about the most serious thing you can do. However, it's definitely not 'right up there with posting links to child porn,' because that actually involves directing someone to objectionable content, whereas a death-threat from a troubled NZ teenager who feels his mother is being attacked by an anonymous character several thousand miles away across an ocean and a continent is... shall we say, unlikely to result in any action?

The BBC staff have to retain a sense of perspective. Since it's hard to view the threat as truly serious (and yes, he reiterates that it is, but he doesn't show any resolve, and it's clear that it's something he posted on the spur of the moment), and the 'threat' wasn't even posted by, or with the consent of, Della, she remains with us, and rightly so in my opinion. If you're really so concerned about it, take it up with the moderators. We all know that trying to get something useful out of them can be like getting blood out of a stone (and I'm sure there are legal and professional reasons, but that doesn't make it any less infuriating!), but they're the only legitimate recourse you have.

Oh - and didn't he have a provisio? Which was, that if 'you were right here' (blicky or Member) then he would kill you? And if so, does it really count considering that you'd have to cross the Indian Ocean for that to be halfway true?

- Jordan

I think probably blicky is the best person to ask for a link, as I wasn't regularly using the site at the time it was posted. I have seen a copy of it, but I don't know the original title of the thread in which it was posted.

I now note with some degree of interest that the first posting of this thread - and hence also its title - is now pending moderation. I should be fascinated to know how the original, innocuous posting, or the humourous and accurate thread title, might contravene any house rule. As I recall, the first posting simply asked the question "how come you're anti-death penalty but pro-murder?", or similar, and carried the title "Death threat Della", which given that the recipient was at the time called Della and had made a death threat seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Obviously it may be a mite embarrassing for the recipient to have to take responsibility for their actions like that, but I don't recall any house rules about not embarrassing people by telling the truth. It's a well known principle in law that the truth is no libel. It seems that principle may not apply on h2g2. What a shame.

H.

This post has been removed.

'I'm sorry, I don't understand. Jimster made it crystal clear that posting originated from her account. Della herself has described the situation: her son made the threat, verbally, and she typed in what he had said and posted it.

'This much I had assumed was beyond dispute.

'Now you are saying Della did NOT post the threat? On what evidence do you make this assertion, please, given that several people saw the threat before it was removed and that Jimster has made the point that it was Della's account that the posting originated from?'

Hoo: yes, I read the original threat. And what's more, I'll tell you that it didn't even sound like Della was typing.

Understand, as someone who has posted twice (so far as I'm aware) from his girlfriend's account that the owner of the account which makes a posting isn't necessarily the person who typed the original posting.


'Again, I don't understand. She denies many things, but one thing she does not deny, one thing she herself tried to use as an excuse, is that although the threat was posted from HER account (for which she is responsible), the person who actually originated the threat was her son.'

She is responsible for her account -- however, if someone posts from it without her knowing what was posted, then the mods have every right to exercise some discretion.


'I do not "imply" that she passed it on. I repeat her version of events, which explicitly state that she passed on the threat from him using her account.'

When did she say that she knew what he was posting? Or, for that matter, that she allowed him to post from her account? If you can show the former, you have something of a case. If you can only show the latter, that 'case' would be significantly clearer.

And even if she did know that he was posting this 'death threat,' I don't necessarily believe that she should be permanently suspended on that basis, nor that it's appropriate to lurk in her conversations and use them to publicly disparage her in an unrelated context. Your only recourse, once more, is to try and influence the decisions of the moderation staff. Good luck; I couldn't even get them to tell me which 'rule' one of my postings was breaking, never mind getting them to ban a researcher based on something concluded nearly a year ago.

- Jordan

I was the one who clicked on the 'Yikes' button, and I myself will be 'interested' to see how the moderators respond.


'Obviously it may be a mite embarrassing for the recipient to have to take responsibility for their actions like that...'

I gathered that we are accountable to the moderators in that respect?

- Jordan

Incidentally, what was hidden? I'm quite fascinated that something has been removed in only a few minutes.

- Jordan

Jordan,

It was blicky the threat was aimed at. I thought it was in his PS convos but I can't find it. It probably doesn't matter too much anyway, as it's fairly obvious that this is now about the whole Della wars anyway.

Interesting to get another view on what the threat entailed.

Is Apparition a teenager? I thought he was in his 20s.


Hoo,

I thought Post 1 was about being prolife and anti abortion? It did seem pretty innocuous to me too, and I suspect that the post has been pulled because of the title. Which is understandable really given that it's still being used to get at Della.



I see that Jordan has yikesed it - care to tell us what your reason to the mods was, Jordan?


I thought that modded post on this page was removed very quicly too. Obviously it wasn't one of use three...

"So far as I recall, the original posting was from Apparition (U180630),"

Then you recall incorrectly. As I've already said, this very morning, the threat originated from Della's OTHER son, here styled "Math Wizard".

SHE told us this.

"I can't actually remember if it was aimed at Blicky or Member,"

It was aimed at blicky.

Jordan: serious question. Given that your grasp of the facts of this matter are so shaky, and that your memory of it is so unreliable, why do you believe anyone should give your opinion of what YOU think happened any weight? Seriously, if you're going to weigh in and judge people, it behooves you to at the very, very least get your facts straight. Simply spouting your uninformed opinion without bothering to check your facts, you begin to sound like... well, who do you think?

"Of course, HooMember. "

Oh, f**k, not you too. Look, I've explained this until I'm a superintelligent shade of the colour blue in the face. Member is not me. I am not Member. Member is/was a person known to me, a colleague about twenty years older than I am who shares many (but my no means all) of my attitudes. It amused him to post here in threads and in conversation with users he had reached via my space. I asked him to stop. He stopped. Bizarrely, Della maintains that this is somehow wrong, that even though I've met dozens of h2 users in person I'm somehow actually a fifty-something Tory rather than a mid-thirties left-liberal. I do not propose to explain this confusion again. If you want to believe that "Member" is/was me, fine. If you want to believe in Biblical Creation, fine. Really, great. Knock yourself out.

"So your contention revolves around the presumption that Della, or her teenage child, has an international terrorist network capable of discovering an anonymous researcher's location and knocking them off?"



No, as you well know. Obviously I need to repeat myself.

If you lived in Columbus, Ohio, I would have the resources to send a burly guy round to your house to say hello. I have no international terrorist network. I have relatives in that town.

It is my contention that I, you, and everyone else on h2 has no way of knowing if Della has the resources to do something similar to blicky. Given what information he has shared about himself in h2 already, it would not be hard for a motivated individual to find him. By "motivated" I mean someone so angry that, for instance, they might threaten to kill him.

Can YOU be certain, and I mean 100% certain, that Della could NOT arrange for blicky to suffer physical harm? No, you cannot. So don't, please, patronise me with your unnecessary fantasies about "international networks". I have suggested nothing unusual or even particularly improbable.

"whereas a death-threat ... is... shall we say, unlikely to result in any action?"

Bravo - you're happy to bet someone else's life on that. Very courageous of you. I certainly wouldn't.

" it's hard to view the threat as truly serious (and yes, he reiterates that it is, but he doesn't show any resolve,"

You have a threat to kill someone. You have a reiteration that the threat is serious. What precisely do you want? A faxed copy of a receipt for a handgun? I'm truly baffled as to how bad someone's behaviour would have to get before you took it seriously.

"and the 'threat' wasn't even posted by, or with the consent of, Della,"

Please see above comment about getting your facts straight. If you're going to persist in stubbornly refusing to deal with the facts as established, you're going to start coming in for the same kind of contemptuous ridicule that Della gets.

" If you're really so concerned about it, take it up with the moderators."

The matter was dealt with at the time, and is, in that sense, closed. However, what I'm concerned about - what, specifially, I am amused by - is someone who doesn't mind using their h2g2 account to threaten to kill other people then painting themself as an "extreme pacifist". There's no rule-breaking involved in Della's hypocrisy, so why would I bother the moderators? Similarly, lying through your teeth, repeatedly, is not against house rules. Neither, I think, is pointing it out. Therefore there is no business for the moderators here. At least, that's what I thought, until the first posting of this thread disappeared. That does seem a trifle odd to me...

H.

"When did she say that she knew what he was posting? Or, for that matter, that she allowed him to post from her account? If you can show the former, you have something of a case. If you can only show the latter, that 'case' would be significantly clearer."

Please be patient, I'll try to find a link...

H.

Hi kea,

I suspected as much, hopefully my recollection tallies with yours. It seemed to me that Appy was a teenager, though he could be in his twenties. That was mainly the impression I got of him. Age on here is rather misleading -- when I went to the London meet earlier in the year, a lot of people said that they expected me to be older!

The posting itself went along the lines of 'Care to tell us why you're anti-abortion but pro-murder?'

I feel it's a rather bad idea to say precisely why I asked for the posting to be moderated, because it adds an uncomfortable layer of transparency to the moderators' decisions, which they are evidently uncomfortable with in the best of circumstances. Nevertheless, because I have decided to reveal my actions, I may as well explain my motivations.

The MAIN reason I asked for it to be moderated because of the subject line. Have you not noticed how it keeps popping up, almost like someone wants it to stay at the top of Della's conversations list, and everyone's spaces? Notice the comment made by Jimster earlier, about Hoo's irrelevent attempts to provoke a relapse? It's not cricket. And, as I said, justice on this site is dealt out by the moderators. People can make themselves look as stupid as they want, but if they post something inappropriate, it's for the moderators to decide their punishment. It's my opinion that the loaded title of this thread is being used to perpetuate Della's chagrin, almost a year after the original comment, and for no good justification. It's not cricket.

Of course, I may or may not have decided to embellish upon this when I reported the posting to the moderators. (Thus, they can make their decision without necessarily agreeing with my personal take on the matter.)

As for how that posting got hidden so quickly (any idea what it was about, kea? Hoo?), this might explain it:

U284

- Jordan

Jordan, a few links for you.

F80629?thread=155651&skip=4571

F63593?thread=407830&skip=0&show=20 Note that here the posting is SIGNED "Della and Math Wizard".

F1697006?thread=407828 The actual death threat thread. Notable that the reply to blicky uses the phrase "You really are a rugby player, aren't you?", which certainly sounds like Della to me.

F63593?thread=407830&skip=68 Specifically: "it was in a posting made by Della was because she was logged in at the time, and posted what I said."

Clear enough for you?



And your reason for yikesing a posting is that "it's not cricket"? Shouldn't that be "krikkit"?

Seriously, doesn't that strike you perhaps as an abuse of the system? Given that you can't in fact point to a house rule that the posting, OR the subject line, contravenes? It certainly looks like cynical abuse of the system me. But who cares what I think?

H.

Err the hidden post was made by my, I yikseded it straight away because I thought I was out of order.

<>

It isn't me either just to get that out of the way for a start.

As I have no family in Australia, New Zealand or America is it OK if I make *serious death threats* to users in those countries since by precedent nothing will happen to me (publically)? Or will I just have to carry on complimenting people on their dashing good looks and intelligent badinage?

Maybe I could get away with a serious Chinese burn-threat to someone in the UK...Oiy, Hoo stick your arm out, son.