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

An Entry a week on average, for two and a half years.

I suppose one of them was bound to get yikesed sooner or later.

Perhaps shocking it hasn't happened sooner? Go on then: who did you defame?

Hi My Ace!
I hope you're well, Sol (may I call you that?)
We really should talk more often.

Anyway, since you asked, I'm guessing that it was for excessive use of a certain expletive, albeit asterisked.
I hope it wasn't the sentiments that someone found offensive.
You know the slogan "Fighting for Peace is like...", of course.
Well, in view of current army-behaviour controversy, I wrote a piece in the guise of a highly-strung trooper, berating those who'd sent put him in his position, and using the f-word a lot. He was there to keep the world pure, you see. Virginal, even.

I thought it was quite good. Obviously went a bit too far, though...
Pin

OK, now there's a sanitised version, sprinkled with smileys.
See how that one fares...

I'm afraid I'm an unrepentant lurker of your page... I suspect I only pop by and actually say something when I've thought of something witty to add. his time my curiosity simply got the better of me.

Of course you can call me Sol.

I must say, when you go over the wall you don't just put a cautious toe over, but smash through the barrier screaming and waving your arms about. I quite like it with the bleeps, actually. Perhaps better than with asterisks. It has a certain visual impact now.

Well, you've certainly summed up my feelings on the topic, though I wouldn't address it to the polititions. I doubt they are much surprised.

Sol it is.

Yes, I don't mind it with the bleeps either.

(Just between you and me, I first thought of it with bleeps. I only wrote it with the rude word instead because it seemed to me to heighten the ferocity. I'm not really sure its in-your-face enough any more, though)

I'm quite meek in RL. I like being iconoclastic in writing because it's the only way I can ever say what I normally bottle up.

On the politics, I sometimes wonder whether there really is some "Establishment" conspiracy to try and make the public miss the obvious. I mean, can you imagine anyone less suitable for a genuine peace-keeping role than a regular soldier?

Construing all this as peace-keeping is the real hypocrisy. It's really keeping the lid on, until a tinderbox of a nation redirects its energies. In that arena, anything goes, unfortunately.

Since you lurk, you might have noticed Solomon 2003. That says much the same thing better, without a bleep in sight.

Pin

It is a silly name for an occupation. Deary me, time, or the lack of it has certainly spared you a rant on the subject of how I doubt there's a conspiricy as we seem only too happy to believe in the fiction of our boys, peace-keeping, far morally superior to the rag heads/ ruskies etc etc. Obviously the work of deranged abberations. I mean, seems to be a given in these debates and everybody seems terribly terribly shocked. Pah.

Actually, socioeconimic factors and a generally more pleasant life in the army has mae our boys morrally superior to the Russians, for example. But as an army's other job is to keep its soldiers in check (the first one is unleashing them, you understand), I think I am allowed to condem the twits utterly for failing miserably to do so when that was the whole point. It's not a few devients though, that's for sure.

Poor old Iraq. In ten years it'll be lucky if it looks like Russia does now, and then where will all the smug people saying that well, at least they are better off without Sadamm be? Sudiously ignoring it, or putting it down to a lack of civic mindedness in the natives I expect.

Sigh. Anyway, I remember Solomon. Beutiful, but I'm in an f-word mood now...