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

Josh
I've voiced this opinion elsewhere, so it's only fair that I do so directly.

You have consistently ignored constructive criticism and reasoned argument about your recent article, even though you have submitted it for review by your peers on four occasions.

If you ask a question, it is normally considered rude to ignore the answer. If you put forward an incorrect assertion and are politely given a correction, it is not only arrogant to persist in your fallacy, but insulting to those who engage with you.

You ask on your home page that people go easy on you in debates. Why should they, if this is how you repay them? Why bother asking for opinions if you simply ignore them? Is this how manners are taught in Oklahoma?

You are currently being lampooned to the skies, and frankly you deserve all of it.

Geoff Taylor

What are you talking about? What critisism have I ignored?

You've ignored what has been said in http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F79561?thread=154855 and in many threads for http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A655805 For a good overview, have a look at http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A670213 -- I don't like this style by Hoovooloo, but maybe you find some answers there, too.

Thanks for that, Cefpret. I was about to get my red pen out.

Josh.

Are you seriously trying to say that you didn't know that you were ignoring the valid arguments of your PEERS when they REVIEWED your offering in PEER REVIEW?

Sorry. I simply don't believe you. Whatever else you might be, you have not shown yourself to be an idiot. Pleading ignorance just doesn't cut it.

Geoff

Josh,

"What are you talking about? What critisism have I ignored?"

First of all, the word is "criticism". I know from personal experience that many Christians don't like it, but most of them can at least spell it.

The answer is "ALL OF IT, repeatedly".

This is called "trolling". It is against the rules of the site, rules you agreed to by joining. You may not realise it yet, but if you persist in breaking the rules of the site, you can be officially warned. If you do it again, you can be stopped from using the site altogether for a week. Keep it up when you get back, and you can be banned for life. It's happened to several people already. It could happen to you. My personal opinion is that if the entry on evolution, and your responses to the criticism of it, is the best you can do, you won't be much of a loss.

Since I've proved by your own methods and logic that gravity doesn't exist and therefore that I am in fact the true Son of God returned in glory to save the faithful, I shall be available at my personal space to receive your praises at your earliest convenience.

H.
Messiah.

Cepfret-

I looked at each of the sites you listed. On the first one, I was asked to change the part about DNA and one sentence in the part about peppered moths. I did this. There were tons of gramatical errors. I fixed those and got rid of the peacocks section. I omitted the part about bats and whales because it had some obvious errors in it. That was all that was asked of me.

In the second site, the actual article, when the article was sent to the writing workshop, I spend a month combing through these, countering them in the article.

The third site, Hoovooloo's critique, was basically a summary of the arguments against me, which I had already refuted or conceded.

Is there anything specific that I have ignored?

Hoovooloo-

I am deeply offended at your pretending to be Jesus. Whether you believe the same as I do or not, I truely believe that Jesus is the son of God, and you should respect that. I respect your beliefs and I expect the same. If you want to delude yourself with visions of people worshiping you, don't do it around me.

Josh, you've done exactly what I expected:

1. Come over all offended because someone else has done something you've already done. (i.e. used faulty logic to prove something you believe is false)

2. Completely missed a point which would be obvious to a small child.

3. Used a word the definition of which you are obviously unfamiliar with.

So, to explain in simple words which you will, no doubt, deliberately appear to misunderstand...

You have "refuted" *none* of the arguments in my critique. The appropriate word here is "ignored". You can't refute something by pretending it isn't there.

You have "conceded" none of the arguments in my critique, because if you had they wouldn't still be in your complete abortion of an entry.

Finally, I am amused that you have taken offence. You deserve to be offended because of your ignorant behaviour. For your information, young man, I am NOT pretending to be Jesus. I am using that as an ANALOGY (look this word up if you don't... no, actually, just look this word up, because I'm SURE you don't understand it). The analogy is between your "logic" - which purports to "prove" creationism by "disproving" evolution - and my "logic", which purports to "prove" that I am the returned saviour by "disproving" the law of gravity.

The WHOLE POINT of saying that is that it should be obvious even to a complete idiot that I am NOT the messiah, and nor am I claiming to be. I say "should" because *you've* obviously misunderstood. If this misunderstanding has caused you to be offended - good.

The WHOLE POINT of saying it is to try (futilely it now seems) to demonstrate to you that disproving a widely accredited scientific theory by using false examples does not by implication prove a primitive superstition. The fact that you missed this very, very obvious implication causes me to doubt whether you wrote the entry at all, since your basic understanding of English, as evidenced in the threads, seems very poor.

As for your beliefs deserving my respect - they had my respect, right up to the moment you tried to shove them down my throat the third time.

You do NOT respect *my* beliefs or anything else about me. The simple proof of that is that this is the first time you've even acknowledged the fact that I exist, much less responded in any way at all to the extensive criticisms of the entry you've posted.

In summary - if you're offended because you've failed to understand something - excellent. If you're offended because of something I've said - you're a Christian. So forgive me.

H.

I was going to leap to Hoovooloo's defence, but I should have realised he didn't need it.

Josh, you are in the wrong here. Please try and see the other point of view. You need to understand what's happening in order for you to avoid similar problems in the future.

Geoff

Okay, now this is my *last* try to be constructive. The whole thing is getting too tedious and too energy consuming, even for the patient.



Josh: Take *one* paragraph of your article, read Hoovooloo's comment on it, and post -- eg here -- your reasons why Hoovooloo is wrong. You think he's wrong, so you must have found errors in his remark. Tell them to us. Not necessarily eloquently, but tell them.

This would start the discussion we (your partners in all the threads) have been looking for. And discussion is the **vital** element of Peer Review and h2g2. It doesn't work without it. Not at all.

I know that you, Josh, are a religious man. Some religious people think that religion and discussion don't fit together, but frankly I find this pathetic. They needn't exclude each other.

So be brave, do it like most other Christians, and embark on the discussion. The worst thing that can happen is that some of us (yes, I mean the plural) learn something.

Josh, if you don't want to tell us your problems with our remarks about your entry, I will unsubscribe from all threads regarding this, and you will continually run against the wall here at h2g2.

That's all.

Hi everybody.

Say, reckon we could cool down tempers a bit here? Science and faith don't mix too well.

I'm rather confident that Josh has figured by now that
a) the entry about Creationism will not make it into the edited guide the way it is written ATM. Not because of faith/believes but because of factual imbalance.

b) he should react to the things said in PR and consider them for amending the entry; that's what PR is about.

And please consider that Josh is farily new to this site (about two months).

I feel that these two facts should combine so as to mean that we shouldn't hit hir like a ton of bricks (outside of the xth reposting of the entry at PR, maybe).

And, Josh, let me tell you that any conversation about religion here at h2g2 has a tendency to become a mud slinging match. This has to do with the fact that you don't talk to your friends at the café, but to people from all over the world. People tend to get nasty and stubborn when it comes to religion....

Tube

I agree that this kind of non-discussion is useless.
Josh says he wants to discuss, but he seems to think that that means he says something and we all applaude his genius.

Hoovooloo, a nice dissection you gave, I suspect you can write a better entry about creationism than Josh if you would take the trouble. Please don't, it might get into the guide.

I think for most of us the best thing to do with these non-articles is to stay away from them, so they will whither and die. You can't discuss with a christian fundamentalist from the bible belt, for they recognise no peers.

I agree it is time to cool things down.

I can see what has provoked the heated argument. I was brought up by a parent who tried to stuff her religious beliefs down my throat and am very uncomfortable with people who do this. She was also of the 'I'm not listening variety' - could not and would not hear anything that did not agree with her beliefs.

I tend to think that personal abuse if rather counterproductive. I can understand it, but it's still counterproductive. It tends to make the behaviour worse rather than better.

Josh, how willing are you to not only listen, but to hear what other people have to say to you? Perhaps it is time to accept for the time being that as it stands, this piece is NOT going to make the Edited Guide. Is that such a big deal? It will still be part of the guide in any case. Why not leave it at that and go on to other entries?

Ok, I'm willing to go with all that.

Josh, I wish you the best.

Everyone else who has been involved with this piece and is still listening: I guess it would be good to let go and hope for the best. It's gone from unfortunate to tricky to unpleasant to ridiculous and on to rid-*culed*. It's not going anywhere else.

I agree that the best thing is to give the issue a rest and wish Josh more success with his future writings here, in the hope that you (Josh) have learned something about other people from this little episode.

All the best Josh.

Spiff

YAY to that!

I've been following the threads on the creationism entry for a few days.

I've concluded that fundamentalist Christianity will rarely, if ever, gain converts from a group of fundamentalist Athiests.

I've concluded that fundamentalist Athiests will rarely, if ever, convert a fundamentalist Christian.

I've concluded that members of both camps are capable of embarassing themselves and incapable of embarassing each other.

I've concluded that members of both camps are capable af acting like 16 year old kids.

I've concluded that I'm disgusted.

NBY

Hopefully, then, NBY's input is "concluded". Thanks.

H.

Oh, I can't resist this. Hi NBY!

Now I'm neither one nor the other and I was trying in my onw way to help with communication, probably unsuccessfully, as Josh has not replied to any of my points. Are you of the let's ignore him and he'll go away persuasion?

Speaking of going away, I've had my fill of this...

Hi Josh

*wonders why he so often says 'Hi Josh' and never gets a direct reply*


People are talking about you. Has it ever occurred to you to address any of these people *directly*? Some are genuinely offended that you don't.

Do you understand this?

This is a direct question to you. If you recognise this fact, please reply to me, directly. That would be a start.

I don't know whether you recognise my name, but I have addressed you directly before. I have never had the slightest response. This is 'discouraging'. Some might say 'offensive'.

All I want to say here is: Josh, if you recognise this as a question, please, *please*, give me a response!


Spiff

Not Banned Yet,

This whole mess has moved well beyond religion and creationism. It's now about rudeness, and how to conduct oneself. I wish

It may seem to you just arriving that all this is very harsh, but this "debate" has been raging for a good few weeks. It started by Josh insulting people who think evolutionary theory is correct. Along the way he has blatantly *ignored* (I'm not just talking about PR here) comments that did not back up his own viewpoint. No debate has taken place because he does not respond to criticism, he just goes around thinking he is the only right person in the universe and any proof to the contrary doesn't exist (see the other thread in Josh's space). The tirade of reasonable criticism was polite and friendly for a long, long time. When people felt like the p**s was being extracted out of them did they start to get mad.

I tried to keep the debate on track, I don't care if he is an jewish creationist who believes that a pink blancmange is God, the boy is rude and arrogant. He behaves like a 16 year old because he is one. I held back from any personal criticism for a long time, but because of Josh's behaviour it had to come to this. Sad but true.

NBY, to sum up, the only thing disgusting about this whole thing is Josh's disregard for a genuinly warm-hearted and freindly community that is h2g2.

Ste