Message from discussion Why 42 ?
From: schou...@sp51.csrd.uiuc.edu (Dale Schouten)
Subject: Re: Why 42 ?
In-Reply-To: email@example.com's message of Wed, 3 Nov 93 07:51:46 GMT
Organization: Center for Supercomputing R & D
References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <adamsd.1102700746A@news.cerf.net>
Date: 03 Nov 1993 17:19:52 GMT
In article <adamsd.11027007...@news.cerf.net> ada...@nic.cerf.net (Douglas Adams) writes:
>The answer to this is very simple. It was a joke. It had to be a number, an
>ordinary, smallish number, and I chose that one. Binary representations,
>base thirteen, Tibetan monks are all complete nonsense. I sat at my desk,
>stared into the garden and thought '42 will do' I typed it out. End of story.
Right, think you know something about it, eh?
Surely you're denying your subconscious interconnectedness with
tibetan monks possessed of 13 fingers!?
Or isn't it true that you originally wrote HHGG in a previous
life in 1924?
You can't fool us with simple facts!