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

It looks more like an entrenched pattern of behaviour when added to what I know.

_@o"

[bounces thread up stack]

A1154954

Thanks David! Now it remains to be seen just how long that entry is allowed to stay visible. I notice that one of SEF's posts has been "hidden pending moderation" already.

I will be posting over there later, but I have to go pick up a carpet now. Someone please pass the Red Bull, Pro-Plus and extra-strong coffee.

I hate Mondays.

I also hate it when people are so dense that you couldn't get them to understand (or acknowledge) a point if you hammered it home with a sledgehammer

"hidden pending moderation"

It seemed to happen simultaneously with me replying since it was there when I started (and my post kept the header). It was also co-incident with one of the nasty underlines logging in - not proof in itself but a much repeated phenomenon.

There are a number of people round here who don't want the truth to be seen. What they don't want to acknowledge is that they shouldn't have behaved badly in the first place. If they didn't do wrong things we wouldn't be pointing them out.

Are we abandoning this thread due to a shortage of sledgehammers or pending the arrival of a pile driver? There was no sign of Symphony being unbanned last time I checked.

I'm not sure how long it takes someone to verify the evidence - especially if they didn't want to look in the first place. It certainly takes longer than not doing it but may be indistinguishable from some forms of pretending to do it. Cheques are supposed to go through in 3-4 working days (varies a lot). So much longer than that would be odd.

With the info that Symphony sent, I could go on the net and verify that their name, address and phone number are all valid. It would take me all of 5 minutes. The drivers licence they sent a copy of is a photo ID, and is accepted as proof of ID virtually everywhere here.

The italics now have Symphony's phone number. They could call them.

I have a feeling that the post by The Editors in the Soapbox thread was nothing more than a token gesture, to shut people up.

I don't see why this thread can't carry on too. Although the hammers seem to be coming out over on the transgressions page I'll keep on putting updates both here and there.

Knowing the nature of bureaucrats, and the BBC *is* a bureaucracy, I'm prepared to give them a little time. Emphasis on the word "little." I'm sure that this isn't at the very top of their priority list. If it becomes evident that it isn't on the list at all, it'll be time to escalate to the next level, whatever that may be, IF Symphony is so inclined.

0

I rather feel (knowing how large companys work, I work for Royal Mail) that there is likely to be some delay when making any decisions. All my experiences on hootoo so far bear this out.

Still they have at least acknowledged there is an issue here which is a good start me thinks .

"Cheques are supposed to go through in 3-4 working days"

Yup, and that's in an organisation that hires lots of people who do nothing all day but process cheques. While this may fall within one or more of the Italics' job descriptions, it's (hopefully) far from a common occurence, and I can understand it taking a little longer the first time round as they make the effort to consult all the different tiers of management before setting a precident.

Or they just popped over to Starbucks.

Time may tell...

The thing is, Peet, that they *claimed* to have investigated before, ie when deciding to ban Symphony in the first place. So how much longer should that have taken than it apparently did, when starting with less information.

PS Banks can actually do it in 1 day but they don't like to admit that. They usually say 11 days or 7 working days and just hang on to your money for the intervening time.

!!! VIRUS ALERT !!!

We interrupt this thread to bring you an important(?) announcement.

One of you who has my email address may be infected with a virus. I received an email earlier today claiming to be from a Mail Delivery Subsystem returning an email which I hadn't sent (unknown subject and address). Unsurprisingly I'm not opening the attachment ATT00041.dat

In case it helps identify the source, this is some of what was allegedly the header of the bounced email:

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2003 03:59:11 -0400
To: [deliberately broken for here]
Subject: Re: That movie
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000

NB If it was genuinely bounced then that was because the To address doesn't even exist outside the infected person's address list and the dumb post-master used the faked from address (ie mine) to "return" it. Otherwise the whole thing was faked. Note that the time-stamp implies an American source but this too could be unreliable.

I don't believe I am infected because I don't go to many sites, don't open dodgy emails, have the latest OS patches and am running ZoneAlarm. I am not even in that time zone and had shut down the computer and headed for bed (just ) by the time it was supposed to have been sent. It is also not the correct mail prog/version for me.

We seem to have reached the end of another week with Symphony still banned. Note that this is a ban based on what even more people are now saying is a false accusation from their own knowledge of the location and non-location of the account holder.

It seems the insinuation of one(?) snitch and the nature of the accusation is enough to override normal procedure, any form of fact checking (despite claims to have "investigated") and even the word of other people who might reasonably be considered to be at least as reliable if not more so than the original informant.

I think the staff really need to take a proper look at whom they trust and why. Especially since this is not the only case of them showing poor judgement or failing to follow their own procedures.

Hmm do we know that the ban is based on a "Snitch" as you say?

I have read the emails Mistdance sent me and have seen nothing which necessarily indicates that is why the ban has taken place.

I went through the alternatives elsewhere.

If the action wasn't instigated by a person (whether a normal researcher, a viewer of the site or even a member or ex-member of staff) then it has to be the result of some automatic process. Do you really believe the site operates intelligent post monitoring code which is capable of selecting Symphony as being LeKZ (and not have selected anyone else as far as we know)? All the genuinely intelligent systems (people) have said that Symphony does not match the established pattern. The other automated alternative would be some IP/email checking. It seems that were this to have been done then Symphony would never have been accused in the first place. While some people say they could fake the data with enough effort, that would necessarily mean an automated process would *not* have singled out Symphony.

Snitch or no snitch? I'm not sure it's relevent. If there was it would be... unpleasant, but still not particularly important. For whatever reason, TPTB saw a supposed reason to believe that the Symphony account was being used by a banned researcher and unilaterally closed the account. I assume they didn't follow the transgressions procedure because they had already 'decided' that Symphony was a banned researcher and therefore, to TPTB, the transgressions procedures would be redundant. TPTB have only made two statements in these fora so far. One to the point of a particular italic's belief that this subject was not pertinent to her, and the other stating, in official non particular italic guise, that they have decided to reconsider their decision. TPTB do not seem to want to discuss this either way, so until they do, or further concrete evidence comes up, all we can do is speculate.

I'll continue my sit-in over on Barton's Porch with the whittlin' and spittin' and drinkin' and the smelly named Blue.

CZ, whittlin' away until Symphony's return or some other news.

Ooh, what are you whittling? I assume it isn't a stake.

Nah. A short length of chain. Great whittlin' practice that I can only do here. IRL it's pretty tough. My dad just made one IRL but he used a scroll saw. Still tricky.

I've done it before but it may depend a lot on the starting material. For a start, not all wood is the same! I go for the systematic approach of making a cross cross-section all the way down first and then dividing up rather than separating off links one at a time. The Chinese do a somewhat similar thing in making carvings within other carvings (wood, ivory or jade). I haven't tried that myself but I think I brought one back with me - I'd have to check to be sure as there is a lot of stuff I haven't unpacked.

Yea. The one my dad just made would be pretty tough with a pocket-knife. It was made in teak. It's actually pretty cute. It's a 'chain' saw: the handle of a hacksaw with a link chain as the blade.

I'd love to go on talking whittlin' but maybe we should take it over to the porch.

CZ

Anyone fancy whittlin' me a love spoon?

**