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

I noticed that.

I don't know about other Americans who are, well, normal, but I recognized it. It's the statue in front of the NY Stock Exchange Building. I had thought there was a statue of Alexander Hamilton there as well, but I just googled for it and I was apparently mistaken. Hamilton deserves to have a statue in front of the Stock Exchange more than Washington, though.

Honestly, I doubt that most other people would recognize the figure unless they have a very firm memory of the back of George Washington's head. Probably would've been better to use a part of Mount Rushmore like they did for the Thomas Jefferson entry.

Yes, or the one you have on your PS.

Yeah, I forgot about that one. There's really no shortage of things in this country containing Washington's image.

That's not really surprising considering the things in the entry you wrote about him.

Maybe I'll get around to reading your other presidential entries one day.

Well, you might be the first to do so

Nawww, I can't imagine that. At least the eds should have read all of them.

I prefer to take our conversation here if you don't mind, the other thread is EF, after all.

You say:
>>I don't know if that was text speak (post 43 is certainly not, and I can make sense of 41)

This reminds me of a debate in PR over how to deal with trolls. I don't like it when people start telling off trolls in PR - even if they deserve it. How we approach problematic people is important, not to encourage trolls themselves to stick around, but for the benefit of lurkers and newbies who see these conversations and say, "Do I really want to be a part of such an uptight, negative site?" Dismissiveness only serves to harm the site.<<

First of all: you classified that researcher as a troll, not me.
I am very careful with this term, not everybody who makes a disruptive post or two is automatically a troll.

Second: I've only found out today that the Chikis are back. I don't know whether you encountered them, but as they have at least 20 accounts here, it is unlikely you didn't.

I am now awaiting their attack. This makes me somewhat tense and probably less patient and relaxed than I usually am.

As for newbies and lurkers: if they really leave the site after they've caught a tiny glimpse in a specialist forum, then tough.
I've seen a lot worse than just somebody asking for proper English to be used in communicating. Just have a look at the Forum. Go there and tell them they scare off newbies. See whether they care.
That doesn't mean that you don't have a point, but I bet you've made postings yourself which would put off a lurking newbie.

I didn't classify anyone as a troll. I said that I was reminded of a debate in PR over trolls, part of which applied in that case. I don't think that that poster was a troll.

I thought GB's post was worse than yours. You just happened to respond.

"That doesn't mean that you don't have a point, but I bet you've made postings yourself which would put off a lurking newbie."

Yeah, definitely. I did yesterday in PR. I shouldn't have.

There you go.

It happens to all of us. That's why I mean that somebody who decides not to join somewhere because of a couple of 'uptight and negative' postings will lose out. Everywhere in life. I f you can't stay open-minded and don't bother to see all facets, you'll be very limited in your choices.

Hi Jordan, long time since I last posted here.

It's that time again: A87737999

It currently lists the guide eds as authors, I've asked Gnomon if that is correct (which I guess it isn't). I'm sure it'll be removed asap.

Before I start: how do you feel about links? There aren't any, and before I set out looking for some I'd like to know if you are pro or contra links?

Yeah, I don't know why the Guide Eds should be listed as authors. Probably some glitch.

Links are fine. I'd have done them myself, if it had occurred to me.

I wonder if you can find a better format for the table spelling "Ludovicus"? I lazily stole someone else's GuideML for it rather than trying to do it myself. It doesn't look quite right just now, though I was unsure of what to change myself.

Thanks.

I'll experiment with the table.

Oh, and the eds as authors was a glitch nad has been amended.

I'm not quite sure what you don't like about the table. Would you prefer to have it horizontal? And centred?

No - the spacing and text size seem strange to me.

I've changed the table width, is that any better?

A87725578

I added the following links (linked keywords are in parentheses):

A18786531 Christianity: An Introduction (Christianity)

A272675 The Bible - A Perspective (Bible)


A952832 Islam - an Introduction

A19645167 Religion - An Introduction (religious (piety))

A533828 Roman Catholicism (Catholic Church)

A206443 Hell (hell)

A472033 What is God? (God)

A523450 The English Civil War (English Civil War)

A22716632 Early North American Colonies (New World)

A727265 Bill of Rights Act, 1689 - The Glorious Revolution (Glorious Revolution of 1688)

A240959 Earthquakes (earthquakes)

A354458 Comets as Harbingers of Doom (comets)

C875 The American Revolutionary War (American Revolution)
A67976987 New Hampshire, USA (New Hampshire)
A356852 The Sun (sun)

A525278 The Constitution of the United States of America (Constitution)

A33105539 Thomas Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson)

A38208053 James Madison (James Madison)

A254477 Atheism (Atheism)

I wonder whether I should add this link A2903636 The French Republican calendar to the reference section (we don't have an entry about the French Revolution)?


And there are two sentences I don't understand:

>>However, in general, the intensity of revolutionary millennialism in the 1770s, coupled with its failure to bring the millennium (?), led to a general depression of eschatological rhetoric in the 1780s &ndash; at least until 1789.<< I'm not sure there is something missing, but it doesn't make much sense to me as it is.


>>the French Revolution was not a step in the direction of social perfection that would greet bring about Jesus's return. << greet bring?

Remove "greet" from the second sentence. That's a classic error introduced in my "proofreading" process.

The first sentence makes sense to me. It's a complex sentence because it's a complex idea.
"However, in general, the intensity of revolutionary millennialism in the 1770s, coupled with its failure to bring the millennium (?), led to a general depression of eschatological rhetoric in the 1780s &ndash; at least until 1789."

Something less academic, though, might be:

However, because the millennialism of the 1770s was so intense, yet such a spectacular failure, Americans lost faith in eschatological rhetoric during the following decade.

Cheers, Jordan. I've made the changes and returned it.