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

Can you describe #h2g2 in 140 characters or less?

sliding

Lipsmackin' stimulatin' acetastin' ennervatin' motivatin' goodbuzzin' cooltalkin' highwalkin' fastlivin' evergivin' coolfizzin' hootoo yaaah

As the rapper said,
if it gots the beats,
it gets the tweets.


Actually, the idea of reducing the comprehensive and
often contradictory nature of a Guide to the Galaxy
to a sound bite of 140 characters is not just self-
defeating it is redundant. It has already undergone
the ultimate reductionist scrutiny. It can be summed
up with a two digit number.
42
Nuff said.


~jwf~

h2g2 is just this thing, you know?

To expand on Blue's question then: how can you describe #h2g2 in 140 characters or less without using in-jokes or making it look like a Hitchhiker's Guide fansite?

>> To expand on Blue's question then: HOW can you describe #h2g2 in 140 characters or less without using in-jokes or making it look like a Hitchhiker's Guide fansite? <<

The question is WHY would you describe h2g2 in 140 characters
without using in-jokes etc. Content and context are essential
to any understanding.

You often make reference to Discworld characters and scenarios
which I'm sure many here, including myself, do appreciate and
give consideration to in light of whatever conversation thread
has inspired you, but you well know they are lost on any who
don't know Pratchett. So, would you consider it possible to
communicate the whole of that Universe in 140 characters?

It may be my general antipathy to Tweeting and Twittering but
I see no reason to even consider trying to reduce either the
h2g2 Universe or the Discworld Universe to a few soundbites.

I wouldn't try to interest Twits in Dickens, McLuhan, Twain, Joyce,
Dr Johnson, Milton, Vonnegut, Shakespeare or any other writer
of any substantial body of literary work, so why would I want
to 'shrink' Adams or Pratchett to such a pinhead census.


~jwf~

As I said in the other thread, I was asked about h2g2 today, and was stumped for a conversational answer: F19585?thread=8287429&skip=60&show=20#p110510664

This is my attempt to find a one- or two-line response to the question "h2g2 - what's that?"

The reason for 140 characters is Twitter. You might not like it, and that's your choice but a lot of people do (me included) and so being able to promote h2g2 in 140 characters is potentially very useful.

>>..attempt to find a one- or two-line response
to the question "h2g2 - what's that?"

And I repeat my assurance that anyone who needs
such a simplistic answer will not be capable of
developing a full interest in h2g2 or likely ever
to contribute anything worthwhile.

Your own postings are excellent examples of well
thought out and carefully expressed opinions. Do
yourself a favour and stop hanging out with Twits.
Embrace the Galaxy as it is and just laugh at those
who don't get it. They never will.


~jwf~

>> You might not like it, and that's your choice...<<

Not so much a choice as a default position created
by the total lack of content and context that is the
Twitterverse. It's just nits picking on nits. A hollow
sham, a shell of vacuity, a path to nowhere in the
constant company of no one.


~jwf~

Do you want a bigger brush and bucket of tar, jwf? I think you missed a bit of the internet over there.

I am actually a little insulted by the implication that the condensed statements necessitated by Twitter indicate a lack of understanding and intelligence. Some of the most intelligent and articulate people I know use Twitter regularly and if I were to post a 'simplistic' statement about h2g2 it's those very people I'd expect to have a closer look and I can assure you ALL of them are quite capable developing a full interest in h2g2 and making a meaningful contribution.

Okay, now I'm a lot insulted.

jwf, that's the singularly most ridiculous sentence I've seen today.

It's elitist bollocks, it's completely ignorant of the way ideas are disseminated online, and it's bafflingly blinkered.

I take it in the recent Egyptian uprising, you'd have been stood by Mubarak with your sage advice that "if they can communicate ideas clearly and concisely, they're obviously too thick to contribute."

If you can't explain something clearly and briefly, you're too clueless to explain it.

*headdesk*

>> If you can't explain something clearly and briefly,
you're too clueless to explain it. <<

Ah, the old "Brevity is the soul of wit" delusion with
a bit of ad hominem projection about my feelings
toward the modern Egyptian pharaohs.


~jwf~

What's the weather like up there, jwf?

Does the Mubarak reference invoke the Godwin law?