At 08.53 -0600 99-03-04, nate wrote:
>>Would that be an assessment or evaluative type of testing?
Nothing so sophisticated. It was purely an instrumental, functional type of
testing.
>>What
>>do you plan to do with the information you gather from this
>>test?
I plan to use it entirely for my own purposes which I don't feel obliged to
reveal at this point. You may access the information in some thirty years
or so under the Freedom Of Information (FOI) Act. Prior to that, the purely
instrumental data generated by my simple but effective test will be put to
no particular use that would concern the general public. Of course, after
thirty years, allowing for inflation and consumer price indices, the
Freedom bit of the FOI will then be worth 750,000,000 global dollars. So
start saving your pennies.
>Will the server have an active role in this test, or is
>>it being done without its knowledge?
I'm sorry, that's restricted information.
>Will the test function as
>>a boundary object and if so who are the interested parties?
This is a non-partisan test carried out with the good of the people of the
world foremost in mind. I repeat, I did not have sex at that party.
Oops.
I mean ... please pass the pudding
>>
>>Nate
>The test of the server
>is completed when the tester gets his own question back
>
> The proof of the pudding is in the eating
Why thank you, I believe I will.
*Burp*
>
>>From then on, it becomes a test of the group
>a collective collage of contributions
>or silence
> anybody interested in a party?
I repeat, this is a non-partisan test. Any suggestion to the counterwise is
a scurrilous slur on the good intentions of the lives and characters of the
many great women and men who dedicated years of their lives to bringing
this well thunk out test to bear upon the pressing problems of a global
non-partisan pudding blight.
> then the server will of course have to serve the pudding
>as the obligatory point of passage it is in this network
Ouch! Pass the pudding please. Has anyone seen the new "webodor" protocols
being developed? I hope not.
>
>who knows?
Nobody. And that's how it's gonna stay, at least for the next thirty years
and perhaps even longer..
>
>Eva
Hi Eva :-)
Phil
Phil Graham
p.graham who-is-at qut.edu.au
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Palms/8314/index.html