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

Why can't people discuss things in one place? This is getting hard to follow. I have just scanned the backlog of this thread, i will read it more carefully later.

I am the only person to post as atled except for a single post by a friend of mine while i was on holiday. The post was simply a calling card in the atelier.

The reason i joined the discussion on the SOG thread is because i wanted to point out Mina's blatent lieing. I did not expect it to become another thread about atled. I am still considering whether or not it is worth continuing to take part in the thread.

I felt it was necessary to make a new account because i did not expect Mina to let Tango join the CAs, considering she knew i was associated with SEF and she had previously thrown SEF out of the group. I needed to be a CA to read the backlog in the CA mailing list, so i had to make a new account. I have explained that before.

Tango

"Why can't people discuss things in one place? This is getting hard to follow."

Maybe you're just too stupid to be able to keep up? Everyone else seems to be managing.


"I needed to be a CA to read the backlog in the CA mailing list"

No Tango, you did *not* need to be a CA, because you did *not* need to read the backlog. You *wanted* to be a CA, because you *wanted* to read the backlog.

At least i don't have to hide my identity when insulting people. Grow up and post from your normal account.

I can keep up fine, it would just be easier, and more logical, to keep discussions in one place.

Again, you show you can't read. I said the "to read the backlog" i had to be a CA, not that i just "had to be a CA". Whether or not i needed to read the backlog is something that has been discussed before, as you would know if you weren't so stupid.

Tango

Thanks for that, Tango. I appreciate you answering that question. That's the clearest you've been yet. I seem to be getting a lot more straight answers here than on the SOG thread!

As for the legal ramifications, what are they? Does anyone know?

How can there possibly be any? There's nothing illegal going on or against House Rules or even anything which other people are not already doing on site. I think you should go back to whomever suggested there might be.

Actually, I suggested it. I'm not very good at being anyone's puppet. I'm too much of a control freak.

Then you ought to know what you think you mean by legal ramifications. If you were less vague, we might have an idea too. I still don't think there are any possible legal ramifications. As I stated elsewhere but you may have failed to read properly, I double checked the House Rules when Tango first came up with the idea of Atled (no nickname then though if I've got the order of events right) just in case he hadn't.

No, it wasn't about the use of an alternate identity. My question about the legal ramifications was about the art that Atled/Tango submitted for his CA test. If he took it from someone else without permission, then that violates copyright laws, which could open the beeb, not to mention Tango, up to litigation.

Sorry, I thought I *had* been clear about that in an earlier post...guess not!

And if someone voluntarily supplied the artwork that Tango submitted as Atled, they are complicit.

Whose post was 61?!

I thought we were all trying to play nice!

"the art that Atled/Tango submitted for his CA test"

If the art isn't being used (ie if Atled isn't becoming a CA) then there is absolutely no copyright issue.

With permission, there isn't a copyright issue even if the art is used by the BBC. There are lots of BBC artists and previous (eg pre-BBC ?) h2g2 contributors whose work appears on the site without explicit credits.

For the intellectually challenged, I should probably explain something else. What Lil said was very stupid indeed as without a crime there is nothing in which to be complicit. Furthermore she is accusing Tango of something, apparently based on no evidence since she hasn't provided any, and which doesn't even exist as a crime.

That is defamation. Just like many of the things the rest of you have been saying are defamation. You don't even have to name the person if everyone is supposed to know one or more people whom you might mean. It is hardly surprising that you should be regarded by various people as being stupid for saying these things and the staff regarded as being stupid for being complicit in continuing to allow you to commit the crime and even committing it themselves.

SEF, I direct your attention to the second word of Lil's last post. The use of the word 'if' implies a possiblity, not an accusation.

And, by the way, the word 'complicit' applies to questionable acts as well as actual crimes. I consider artwork submitted but not created by an applicant a questionable act when not disclosed by that applicant.

Wrong! If they gave permission then there is no crime and Lil said there was with that if. If it were a crime or even a questionable act then all multiple accounts including staff ones shouldn't be allowed and all non-attributed art and photos from the BBC is equally suspect. If they have permission then it is OK and it is hypocritical to apply different standards of behaviour to Atled/Tango.

Wrong! If they gave permission then there is no crime and Lil said there was with that if. If it were a crime or even a questionable act then all multiple accounts including staff ones shouldn't be allowed and all non-attributed art and photos from the BBC is equally suspect. If they have permission then it is OK and it is hypocritical to apply different standards of behaviour to Atled/Tango.

But it's such a simple question; why can't Tango answer it? Who did the artwork he submitted as Atled?

I'm going to explain this again in simple words.

In post 68, Montana Redhead suggests a crime may have been committed.

In post 69, Lil, replies (no simulposting was involved) saying that if Tango had permission from someone else then that other person would be complicit. She doesn't say that it wouldn't be a crime in that case. She simply adds to the previous statement by saying someone else would be complicit. No-one reasonable reading the posts could possibly take them any other way.

Witty Moniker's attempt to excuse Lil with an inaccurate quibble over the use of the word "if" and the introduction of the idea of questionable acts is feeble. If true it would mean the BBC staff are also repeatedly guilty of these questionable acts.

SEF, you've missed the point. The question was 'Who did the artwork he submitted as Atled?'

No-one, as yet, has given anything even vaguely resembling an answer to this.

So Lil, while you haven't retracted your statement that a crime would have been committed, why should Tango reply and thereby appear to be admitting to a crime and implicating someone else.

It was a ludicrously wrong thing for you to say and defamatory because you were trying to make people think ill of Tango (and others). Anyone who didn't know better would fall for it. So it was a very nasty thing for you to do - especially since you think you have a position of trust in the community and expect to be believed by people who know you. Anyone else who did know better, came past and failed to refute your statement was also complicit in your attempt to defame Tango.

I haven't missed the point. I am unable to post long posts due to internet faults. My previous post got eaten. So I had to rewrite it completely as well as splitting it up. Otherwise you would have been able to read it in one go.