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

why am I thinking of the borg?

We are using groupthink and sort of mindspeak, or something. It's like a scifi story from Podcastle or erm escape pod (i can't remember which is witch)

Wearing black suity trousers with something shirt/blousey. Not sure what i'm doing with my hair or anything yet.

mini

Let;s break it down into component parts.

(we think*) The tendency is that new ways of doing things is either towards [incorporation or rupture].

This can be explained by the way that they fit within the frameworks for measuring knowledge.

No that's not it at all.

+++Out of cheese error+++


*'We seem to believe'? What kind of rediculous cop out phrase is that?

When people do new stuff it either comes together like and a team plan or splinters into a thousand million tiny pieces.

We can decide which it is/will be (?) by measuring these new methods against accepted ways of doing things.

I have no idea what 'epistowhatsit' is doing thee though.

Who's "we"?

When you boil the sentence down to the bare bones, doesn't it just mean "we'll make it up as we go along, and change our minds as and when we need to"?

Oh and hair tied back, mini?

And save a nice dose of lemsip for just before you set off/ long enough before you set off for it to have kicked in.

>> "we'll make it up as we go along, and change our minds as and when we need to"?

Shhhhh, KB. Or the emperor will get cold.

It's odd, the rest of the paper is entirely readable. Just this bit that made me grind to a halt. Glad to know it's the paper, not the .

B

>>> By the way, did the two of you talk about tweeting

Who? Me and Z, Z and Beatrice, or Beatrice and me?

If I was involved in any combination, the answer's no.


HN
Standing by to stand by

You and Beartrice - she respoded to my plea for tweeters in Ask.

It's not too early in the day for a is it?

No here, have a few:

As the sentence starts with "we seem to believe" it sort of nullifies anything that comes after it anyway, doesn't it? Belief as a concept is a pretty rickety foundation in any paper. But "seeming to believe" - surely has no place there at all. You may as well say "It looks like we are assuming". In other words "we haven't thought this through yet"

And, as KB says. Who's "we" anyway?

Haven't discussed the details of tweeting yet - who needs to talk to me? I should be pretty easy to find.

Happy Nerd, meet Beatrice. Beatrice, meet Happy Nerd.

Actually, let me email you both.

B

Why have you still got the Internet, young lady?

Because my research topic is what the users of BBC websites expect or claim of the BBC, and how they go about trying to achieve those claims.

I need backlog.....

Well, that's a good excuse, I'll give you that.

Interesting topic too.

Depressing though. All the people we've lost. And ye gods, but we gave the Italics a hard time.

A604928

F73671?thread=143269

A623288

A526060

A520769

A544943

Almost back on track. Could it be that since , that the best thing we could do when free from BBC restrictions is to stop believing that the trajectory of methodological innovation (toward incorporation or rupture) lies inherently in the epistemological commensurability of new methods with broader methodological paradigms, and by so doing gain some understanding of the methodological innovation and inherent epistemological commensurability that drives h2g2 on the right coarse.

Spell checker doesn't like *epistemological commensurability*

You sure you don't have it set on BS checker mode?

But did they ever respond to your demands?