Re: the 4-1-1 on 4/11 on real page numbers
jim said:
Jane Austen P&P is available in 4,800+ formats from Amazon today alone, none of which agree on page numbers. Page numbers are hopeless to use as cites.
jim, listen closely to me: you are dense. you don't seem to realize it, but you are arguing my position, albeit quite clumsily. your "4800+ formats" position summarizes the problem, which, as i said, is inevitable. the next step, as i just told you, is that people will try to invent other ways to "point at" a particular passage to discuss. none of these methods will be compelling, and there will be widespread disagreement about which to utilize, thereby creating what social psychologists call "coordination trouble". which will bring about the third step, which i also just informed you about, which is to agree on a method of "canonical pagination". you're fixated on step 1 of a 3-step process. that's because you're dense, jim. d-e-n-s-e. and you also appear not to know that we have already discussed this particular instance here. it was back in september of 2007, when your good buddy marcello brought up the topic... just exactly like you, he pointed out that there are many editions of "pride and prejudice", and each of them differs in their pagination, thus he asked "which pagenumbers we should use?" the answer was simple: it depends upon which particular edition you are digitizing, and which edition you'll wish to refer people to, for dialog. you can see my response here:
at the time, i found 4 different editions digitized online. so i said this;
if you're digitizing the 1844, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. if you're digitizing the 1853, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. if you're digitizing the 1870, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. if you're digitizing the 1892, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks.
i also said this:
i put the scans of the first page on my site for your convenience: http://z-m-l.com/go/pap/pride_and_prejudice(4).html
so, once we evolve to step 3 of our 3-step process, we will adopt one of these 4 "canonical paginations" for "pride and prejudice" -- depending up which of the 4 editions we wish to use for our discussion -- and it will be necessary for the e-book that we use for our discussion to be able to attain that pagination. and if none of the 4800+ versions of the book up already can perform the task of attaining one of these paginations, we'll toss them into the garbage, and that will decide that. so this is what i was doing at 4:20 on 4/20, showing jim -- once again -- that he's dense... i must be dense too... but i'll learn... i'm gonna go get high now... -bowerbird
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 4:35 PM, <Bowerbird@aol.com> wrote:
jim said:
Jane Austen P&P is available in 4,800+ formats from Amazon today alone, none of which agree on page numbers. Page numbers are hopeless to use as cites.
jim, listen closely to me: you are dense.
you don't seem to realize it, but you are arguing my position, albeit quite clumsily.
your "4800+ formats" position summarizes the problem, which, as i said, is inevitable.
the next step, as i just told you, is that people will try to invent other ways to "point at" a particular passage to discuss.
none of these methods will be compelling, and there will be widespread disagreement about which to utilize, thereby creating what social psychologists call "coordination trouble".
which will bring about the third step, which i also just informed you about, which is to agree on a method of "canonical pagination".
you're fixated on step 1 of a 3-step process. that's because you're dense, jim. d-e-n-s-e.
and you also appear not to know that we have already discussed this particular instance here.
it was back in september of 2007, when your good buddy marcello brought up the topic...
just exactly like you, he pointed out that there are many editions of "pride and prejudice", and each of them differs in their pagination, thus he asked "which pagenumbers we should use?"
the answer was simple: it depends upon which particular edition you are digitizing, and which edition you'll wish to refer people to, for dialog.
you can see my response here:
at the time, i found 4 different editions digitized online.
so i said this;
if you're digitizing the 1844, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. if you're digitizing the 1853, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. if you're digitizing the 1870, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks. if you're digitizing the 1892, use its linebreaks and pagebreaks.
i also said this:
i put the scans of the first page on my site for your convenience: http://z-m-l.com/go/pap/pride_and_prejudice(4).html
so, once we evolve to step 3 of our 3-step process, we will adopt one of these 4 "canonical paginations" for "pride and prejudice" -- depending up which of the 4 editions we wish to use for our discussion -- and it will be necessary for the e-book that we use for our discussion to be able to attain that pagination.
Tell me a bit more about the "canonical paginations". I suspect that in the long-run, there will be less needs of different versions, and we will only need a handful version of 'pride and prejudice' so we can all reference to it and deep link into it.
and if none of the 4800+ versions of the book up already can perform the task of attaining one of these paginations, we'll toss them into the garbage, and that will decide that.
so this is what i was doing at 4:20 on 4/20, showing jim -- once again -- that he's dense... i must be dense too...
but i'll learn... i'm gonna go get high now...
-bowerbird
_______________________________________________ gutvol-d mailing list gutvol-d@lists.pglaf.org http://lists.pglaf.org/mailman/listinfo/gutvol-d
-- My [Blog <http://bit.ly/f78b3u>] [Facebook <http://on.fb.me/gXRMh3>] [ Twitter <http://bit.ly/f4hRpq>] [LinkedIn <http://linkd.in/g3VevR>] and [Ebook Publishing Platform <http://signup.mobnotate.com/>]
so this is what i was doing at 4:20 on 4/20, showing jim -- once again -- that he's dense... i must be dense too...
Without passing judgment on your self-analysis, I will simply point out that your "solution" still doesn't offer much if any value to another student who actually wants to look up the cite.
participants (3)
-
Bowerbird＠aol.com -
Jim Adcock -
Ricky Wong