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

Thank you for noticing. You were right, I did yikes those posts. There was no threat implied. However, since one was inferred, and since the italics declined your request, I've done what I can, and will continue to do so. There may be one more thing I have to say on this subject, but it'll have to wait. I'm not being cryptic, I shall explain in a day or so. One more message only, however, as I have said elsewhere I'm trying to withdraw from these conversations here, and I'm not going to get involved in them elsewhere.

On the point of exclusion - I allowed my general dislike of the tone of the conversation to deafen me to some of the principles involved. I agree with il viaggiatore (sp? - non-Italian speaker) that this has all been taken far too seriously. But a degree of empathy for the gagged is a part of the reason why I am no longer contributing to this discussion. On the other hand, since Lucinda provided a link to tapioca on their space, it has for me and I expect some others, become a practically seamless adjunct to these threads. Isn't the internet wonderful?

Please do not be offended if I do not specifically respond to messages on that subject. I'm staying in H2G2, but I'm avoiding the subject of LeKZ from now on, as my input is not constructive.

H

Hoovooloo,

I have to admit that I find you confusing. That's okay. You obviously have a sense of right and wrong and are willing to stand by your beliefs. You state your case intelligently, if, perhaps, emotionally at times. I plead guilty to the same.

Whether or not you are a person I could like, and I don't know yet, you are a person I can respect. And I do.

Hello. I don't *mean* to confuse. I implied I may say more here in a day or so. Due to circumstances beyond my control, I don't have anything to say, yet. Give me seven days, max. Sincere thanks for the invites, but they won't be taken up. (Some) reasons will become clear.

Interested to note more Villagers are being declared unmutual.

On a lighter note, I am a self-confessed pedantic git. I am therefore compelled by the same inability to keep my >metaphorical< mouth shut that got me involved in this whole issue in the first place to ask the following question regarding copyright law:
Is it possible to write something in the year 2001, and mark it as copyright year 2000? I mean I know there's a time difference but hey... NO WAIT! I know what's happening. There's some "send it back in time and successfully sue the makers of the breakfast cereal for infringement of the same laws" deal going on isn't there? If there is, I want a go in your time machine! Preferably last week.

H. Fluffy sometimes.

It used to be digital.

Fair question on the time travel.

Well, I guess it is possible to write something in 2001 and mark it as copyright 2000. I mean, all you have to do is move your hands in just the right way while marking it.

In the case of the Haiku included in LeKZ's signature, though, it happens to have been written in March 2000. LeKZ, at that time, was a performing member of the Denver Womens' Chorus (1st soprano). I was a Tech Support member. The chorus was in the process of recording a CD of music they had comissioned on the topic of breast cancer. The haiku was composed with the loss of a significant part of a person's body, for the purpose of preserving that body's life, in mind. They resurected it now because it seemed such a good fit with the current situation.

You can order the CD online, through either the Denver Womens's Chorus or Ladyslipper Music. A portion of all sales proceeds are donated to breast cancer related charities. You can also find both LeKZ's and my name on the jewel box insert.

Oops...

You cannot order anything through the Denver Womens's Chorus. You can, however, order a CD through the Denver Womens' Chorus.

Sigh... it's been a long day.

The CD is entitled "Where I Live."

I got a gud edjukashun.

I live with the creature that wrote the "Declining English" entry, on the misuse of the apostrophe.

Women's

ATTENTION MODERATORS:

THE DENVER WOMEN'S CHORUS, TO WHICH I REFER IN THE PREVIOUS FOUR ENTRIES ON THIS THREAD, IS A COMMUNITY BASED, NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.

IT IS MY BELIEF, THEREFORE, THAT THOSE ENTIRES ARE NOT IN VIOLATION OF THE NO ADVERTISING HOUSE RULE.

Hi. Thanks for all the info! Didn't realise the (c) was only for the haiku.

I'm now, thanks to my assiduous cultivation of anonymity, in an odd position. I can't possibly, by anyone's standards, be regarded as a "Friend of LeKZ". I'm getting more and more concerned about what's happening. My complete refusal to engage in any way whatever with tapioca, beyond reading it and responding, confirms that. I've never posted a link on my page, and I haven't joined. So I *should* be one of the least likely people to be "disappeared" as a result of mentioning things. (I hope).

I'm an apologist for the BBC and the italics. Over the last 48 hours they've made this job damn difficult. If the "next step" is removing agitators, I may remain. If agitators are removed, they'll not be forgotten, and it won't end there. That's all.

BCNU.
H.

I've just read a post that depressed me slightly.

I've read a website which is self admittedly "sprawling" (not a pejorative term in itself) but also far from clear. I've drawn bizarre conclusions from, let's face it, bizarre writings. I've posted on them. Guilty, guilty, and guilty. *I* think many people would draw the same conclusions - stress, *my* opinion only.

However, given later information, I've *tried* to get those postings taken down. I've failed. Note that well - as the *author* of said postings, complaining to the PTB, admitting I have posted material which is factually inaccurate and by implication offensive, I have nevertheless failed to get this stuff removed despite repeated requests.

I have pointed out that I am well aware of the bitter irony of complaining about being talked about behind your back while engaging in exactly that activity.

The conversation has moved on to (if 'twere possible) even more worrying levels of control and enforcement. My absolute refusal to communicate anywhere but here will (I hope) leave me here if there is any kind of "night of the long knives" type attempt to remove those who are seen as causing trouble. I have more to say about the above, but I am giving the PTB every possible chance to respond to respectfully phrased requests for information etc. before I make clear what they said and what I said etc. etc.

I'm as disturbed as anyone about the turn this has taken this weekend. I've made clear what I think of "disappearing" the links.

I've done my level best (which admittedly at some stage was pretty poor) to remain a disinterested observer at all stages. I shall continue to do so. What else can I do?

H.

H,

That website does sprawl, and seems do so more every month.

I can hardly think you were the first person to have read it, and I assume you did so at some length, and have the word "bizarre" come to mind. Every reader of that site who does not go there with preconceived notions, IMO, has an emotional first reaction of "Nope. Can't be. These are the deranged fantasies of a deranged mind." Some keep that view, others revisit and rethink, read from a few other sources and then either keep the original view or start thinking that just maybe at least some of it is possible.

A number of emails have been received about how personally familiar some of the content is.

My feeling right now is that you've done everything you possibly can. I wouldn't want you to endanger your neutral position. You've typed some things you now regret. So have I.

I believe that by calling people elsewhere, including me, on inappropriate behavior, you're doing everybody a favor. How can it hurt to have a neutral party keeping EVERYONE honest?

I'm hoping that I'm way off base and that there will be no "night of the long knives." Sadly, events so far follow, in virtually every detail, events I saw used against those questioning government, corporate or University policy during my "political activist" days during the US war with Viet Nam and while organizing migrant and seasonal farmworkers after that.

Allow me to register my gratitude for things being made, and I quote, "crystal clear". There is a very specific reason for my being, ahhh, mercurial. All will, I promise, become clear(er) in the next few days.

H.

Here's hoping I last that long.

Hope you're OK. If you're reading this then you're probably a bit better at least, in which case, welcome back.

H

Thanks.

I'm on dilaudid, so my thinking isn't as clear as it could be. That being the case, I'm not going to try to participate in any serious discussion today.

Hope you're feeling better.

I'm not sure if this matters at all (I may be egotistically misinterpreting something as a reference to me when it isn't, in which case, just ignore me), but I'd just like to make it completely clear to anyone interested that my thighs are neither warm, nor fluffy.

I make a point of sharing relevant information - people who don't drive me to irrational annoyance for reasons explained in irrelevant detail elsewhere.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

H

I don't think that anyone other than yourself had actually considered that you may be considered warm or fluffy in any way.

None the less, consider your point made and your relevent information shared.

NBY

I wish now I'd waited 24 hours - I must learn Patience, and stop wasting my time on minesweeper . On the basis of one event I was briefly concerned FWT might have been mistaken for me. On the basis of subsequent events, I think it's pretty obvious it's not...

H.
A man who LurKZ.

I've just read something very interesting. However, I am duty bound to point out the following: information exchanged could not be said to be privileged if it was already in the public domain. Specifically, I knew it already. I've made reference to it somewhere - in a post describing transgressions of italics, I listed banning, and a bunch of other stuff including threats of banning associates of the banned. Not sure whether this is *exactly* the same thing, but it may be. I was certainly aware that you, NBY, appear to be on borrowed time and read into that... well, I read into that what I should have.

On the subject of emails, I'm not in "personal" contact with anyone here. All my correspondence occurs here. Nobody has my email address, apart from the one at [url removed by moderator] So I've received nothing, and I can't think of anyone who would/could have sent anything. It is (I hope) obviously not me, and without sight of what's been sent I couldn't make any attempt at guessing who it could be. The one observation I would make is this: researchers know whatever email addresses are given them by other researchers. The italics know all email addresses. The italics are now just other researchers, sort of. Just a thought. I wish I could help further, I really do...

I had actually posted the entire content of the message you are referring to elsewhere.

The big issue, to me, is that the content of that message was revealed to a third party in a different, and entirely inappropriate, context.

Within the confines of that context, there are only about 1/2 dozen choices...