Talk:Mr. Bean

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mr. Bean article.
Article policies
Good article Mr. Bean has been listed as one of the Arts good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Image:WikiWorld_icon.JPG Mr. Bean was featured in a WikiWorld cartoon:
(click image to the right for full size version.)

Contents

[edit] DS game

I see no mention of the recently released Nintendo DS game on the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.167.190.140 (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alien or Angel?

A beam of light appears which could be interpreted as a flying saucer. But just as equally, in juxtaposition with the “heavenly choir music” it could be an angel going to earth from heaven.

Both would explain why Mr. Bean is so hapless and ignorant. His objective is to, perhaps, experience life on earth. Which is so foreign and odd, “using an explosive is just common sense to paint a room".

I'm adamant that Mr. Bean is an angel either sent to earth or barred from heaven.

-G

[edit] Inconsistency

I noticed an inconsistency. In the first paragragh, it says that "Good Night, Mr. Bean" was the last episode, but in the episode listing, Hair By Mr. Bean of London was the last episode. I'm not sure which one's right, but according to the order of the DVD I have, the episode listing is correct. Poseidon^3 01:31, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know myself. I think you should change the first paragraph seeing as thats is last on the DVD. If someone knows different they can easily change it and explain why. --βjweþþ (talk) 17:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
"Good Night, Mr. Bean" was the last episode broadcast. "Hair By Mr. Bean of London" was a video-only episode (now also on DVD). BillyH 17:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've noted that in the article. --βjweþþ (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Better yet, can anybody explain which episode was the last one to be filmed?

[edit] Blue Car

Why does Mr Bean hate the three wheeled blue car so much? --Fir0002 08:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

It once said bad things about his mother. It also stole his pocket money one time and used it to buy sherbet. Phileas 06:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
It's inexplicable. If there were a valid reason for the car being the enemy, it probably wouldn't be as funny. --DearPrudence 20:38, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The blue Reliant is the first thing the audience sees in the very first episode, holding Bean's mini up on the way to his mathematics exam - his dislike of it appears to stem from there, becoming a running joke throughout that episode, and the programmes that followed. Bob 16:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alien

Can someone please confirm whether Mr. Bean is an alien or not? It has caused long running disagreements amongst my friends.

There was a large section in the article about this, but it really depends on your own interpretation. Bob 13:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC) (modified 5th April 2006)


It never occurred to me that he wasn't officially an alien. In retrospect I've always assumed that he was an alien.
I'm not sure I heard it from any other source other than the girl that introduced me to the series. Hmmmmmm. Interesting to find out years later that I was under a false impression (despite them later claiming he is an alien in the animated series.) quantumbuddha

[edit] Frolic?

The episode guide here frequently refers to the sketches as 'frolics'. Is this a proper term used for them by the creators or just an interpretation? I was just wondering because it seems rather an odd term.Bob 13:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] USA Broadcast

It's my understanding that Mr. Bean was initially broadcast in the US exclusively on HBO. Other than that, the article is correct in that it's now usually a staple of local PBS channels. Pimlottc 11:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced section

I removed this section as it is unclear whether it is original research or referring to opinions published in a reputable source:

Alien Theory The show's title sequence (used from the second episode onward) depicts Mr. Bean falling from the sky in a beam of light. Theories on the meaning of this have ranged from Mr. Bean being an alien to his being an angel sent to Earth, suggested by the choral music used during the sequence. Another possibility is that Mr. Bean has been rejected from Heaven due to his previous bad behaviour and general abnormality.

More humorously, perhaps, as a character who is always having odd things happen to him, it could represent his return after an abduction.

However, the sequence is more probably symbolic or allegorical: the producers of the show claim that it is intended to show his status as an ordinary man cast into the spotlight, which is also suggested by the 'ecce homo' theme. Others simply regarded it as a spoof of a scene in the movie Terminator. The animated series (see below) would take the theory in a more literal direction.

Arniep 10:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I restored the alien theory section, but removed that 'rejected from Heaven' bit, because I agree that seems like "original research". The actual 'alien theory' must be an acknowledged theory, or why else would the animated series have featured a scene with duplicate alien Mr. Beans? Bob 10:30, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
All that is left is still seems to be someone's personal commentary. Unless we have a reputable source where we can say this person or persons said this about Mr. Bean we can't really use it. Arniep 12:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I see the problem, the trouble is information such as that is the sort of thing that is probably on a DVD commentary/documentary that the original poster heard at some point, so difficult to source. I think we should have a section on it here, because it is clearly an aspect of the programme, so I guess we'll just have to assume it's correct.Bob 13:51, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I think it should definitely stay on the talk page unless it can be verified that the theories were proposed by a prominent TV critic or in a book, Wikipedia isn't really the place for personal theories or interpretation. Arniep 22:24, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
I found a page from an interview with Rowan Atkinson in which he talks briefly about Bean's alien-like quality, so hopefully that backs up this 'theory' a little better. I've also added a link to a video of the title sequence so people can judge for themselves. Bob 18:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I have removed most of the alien speculation and just incorporated it into the Mr.Bean section. Arniep 18:59, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Theme

This statement about the opening music was removed as being original research, but it's a good observation, so I have retrieved it to put on the talk page;

The melody and harmonies of the theme are strikingly similar to those of Bruckner's "Locus Iste"

Bob 22:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I think this article should be put back into the categories Fictional English people and Fictional people from London because Mr. Bean is both those things205.251.53.132 01:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Bean and Autism

This comment was added to the Mr. Bean character section:

He does appear to have traits associated with Asperger's Syndrome.

The problem is it is difficult to say really - is this just an interpretation? Perhaps this could be re-added to the article if a source could be found which verifies this point of view. Bob 12:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mythbusters episode

I'm wondering if a reference to the Mythbusters episode about painting a room should be added. The episode aired last night (in the US), and featured Mr. Bean's attempt to paint his flat with explosives. The myth was busted. MythBusters_episodes:_Season_3#Episode_52_-_.22Mind_Control.22 WillMcC 22:04, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

You could add it if you like, although Mr. Bean is hardly the most realistic programme ever, so I suspect most people knew it wouldn't work anyway! Bob 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I've just added that today, in the Mr. Bean in Popular Culture away. It is also referenced on the episodes list. DeniabilityPlausible 22:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Merging

Yes, I agree, although to be honest there's nothing to merge - all of the Teddy article is on the main Mr. Bean page, so it may as well be removed. The only reason I can see to keep it is for its place in the w:category:fictional bears Bob 15:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Except he's not a bear :-) Arniep 01:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, good point. Unless you count a teddy bear as a fictional bear. This is where it gets complicated... Bob 10:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Teddy bears are toys made to resemble bears, so teddy is a fictional toy that vaguely resembles a bear, not a fictional bear. Arniep 22:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like something from Yes Minister! I wonder what Winnie the Pooh counts as? Bob 08:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Split proposal for "Episode guide" section

I think that section is too long for this article, and I think it would be best if it needs its own independence. --69.227.170.166 23:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's probably a good idea - they are quite long now. Bob 08:47, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree. I've been renting and watching all of the Bean tapes and adding to the episode synopses, so they've been growing even longer. vedantm 07:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I have moved the episode guides to List of Mr. Bean episodes. I wonder if the main page still needs a shorter list of episodes though. Bob 10:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teddy vs. Teddie

Please excuse me, its probably my American accent that is causing my confusion, but can someone please explain to me why the article needs to point out that Mr. Bean pronounces "Teddy" as "Teddie"? In the far inferior American dialect "Teddy" and "Teddie" are pronounced the same. Thanks in advance. --Easter Monkey 06:26, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

It's really just the way he says it, split into two syllables and then with a long "ie" on the end. I must admit it's not that helpful though. Bob 08:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand the point. "Teddy" vs. "Ted-die" — a deliberate, exagerrated split between the two syllables with the second being elongated somewhat? --Easter Monkey 08:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Be assured that it is nothing to do with your American accent; I was going to ask the same question and I live in the UK. — blobglob talk 00:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll remove it then, it's not that useful really. Bob 09:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Mr. Bean seems to have a supply of Teddy bears ..." This is an attempt to shoehorn real-world cause and effect into a fictional fantasy world. The fact that Bean always has a Teddy in good nick, despite previous damage and mayhem, does not indicate, or even imply, that he has a supply of bears, any more than Dali's painting indicates the existense of liquid timepieces. It's a fantasy world.4.156.135.103 20:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] First Episode

I was in the audience for the first ever Mr Bean, back in July 1989 :-). It wasn't broadcast until January 1990, as the main article states. I never knew it would become huge. I thought it would be moderately successful ... what an underestimation! ~~AlesiFanatico

[edit] ChuckleVision movie?

Where on earth did the bit about Mel Smith directing a ChuckleVision movie come from? It's in that article too. I can't find any official sources... BillyH 01:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not on IMDb, so is possibly a hoax - I'll remove it. Bob 12:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sitcom?

An anonymous editor, of varying IP addresses, is repeatedly reverting the genre shown in the infobox to 'Sitcom'. I maintain that Mr. Bean does not conform to the traditions of a sitcom for at least three reasons:

  • It involves only one major character, who doesn't conform to any stereotype of normal civilisation.
  • A single episode can contain three or more separate storylines (sketches would be an accurate description) which do not constitute an over-all plotline.
  • None of the episodes run in a series, they're all separate one-off specials.

I cannot continue to correct this because of Wikipedia:3RR. Therefore may I request assistance of other editors to prevent further vandalism to the article. ~~ Peteb16 21:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I've now changed it to Physical comedy. I hope everyone agrees with this. ~~ Peteb16 08:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Passed

Meets all criteria. Some minor suggestions are to merge the Trivia section into the article text. Could use more references. Noclip 04:15, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mr Bean's Diary

This article doesn't seem to mention Mr Bean's Diary. Worth adding? --HisSpaceResearch 14:00, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a good point, as I gather it was a bestseller. I don't know anything about it, though. Any offers? Bob talk 21:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, I happen to own a copy of Mr. Bean's Diary... although what, if any, relevant information I could add to the article about the diary I don't know... just don't know where it would be worth adding... or could a seperate short section with a summary linking to a new page with more detailed information on the diary be worth it? I mean, there must be other Mr. Bean merchandise that doesn't get a mention here... but still... --HisSpaceResearch 12:45, 3 February 2007 (UTC)--HisSpaceResearch 12:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] St Paul's Cathedral

Just a detail I noticed is that in later episodes of Mr Bean it always commences with a view of St Paul's Cathedral. Was this to incorporate the old Thames Television ident into the start of the episode for international markets perhaps prior to morphing into the start of the Mr Bean titles or was it just coincidence? --Wrh1973 20:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That's quite an interesting observation, actually, I'd not made that connection. Certainly St Paul's was quite prominant on the early 90s Thames ident, although it could just be there to establish that the series is set in London by using a famous landmark. Perhaps it was a mix of both. Bob talk 23:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Music

The article says this regarding the first season music: which was more an incidental tune than a theme. I don't know enough about the subject matter to change it myself, but odds are that, musically-speaking, it was just a theme and not a full song. An alternate wording might be "... more of an incidental motif than a theme song.", but, again, I don't know enough about it to change it myself. —  MusicMaker5376 16:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Renewed version

What's the matter with the renewed version of the article being so reduced, with most of the sections deleted? Kumagoro-42 16:48, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Spoiler Warning

Hey guys, I'm not skilled enough to format it myself, but there really needs to be a spoiler warning on the bean animated series. It ruined the ending, and the plot of the final episode for me. I don't want the same to happen to anyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.0.102.33 (talk) 03:11, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Likable"??? He's a bloody sociopath

It understandable but a shame this article is so heavily biased in favour of Mr. Bean. Many people enjoy Mr. Bean but going so far as to describe him as "likable" despite all the trouble he causes. I was trying to find a reference to see if Atkinson himself had admitted that Mr. Bean is practically a sociopath but I haven't found any such quote yet, although it is a recurring description. (With this in mind suggestions of autism or Aspergers syndrome seem grossly unfair to people genuinly suffering from those problems.)

"As for Mr. Bean himself, he's far from a hero, though he plays that role in the movie. A sychiatrist might call him a sociopath."

http://movies.msn.com/movies/PMG/BeansHoliday

"his total obliviousness can seem selfish, even sociopathic."

http://www.straight.com/article-106657/mr-beans-holiday The lack of criticism makes me very tempted to mark this article as lacking a neutral point of view. -- Horkana 14:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's a pov problem, really - certainly not to the extent you claim. It does say he's only generally likable and qualifies this by noting that "The humour largely comes from his original solutions to any problems and his total disregard for others when solving them, his pettiness, and occasional malevolence". Bob talk 15:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Still thinking of a suitable way to rephrase it. Perhaps contrasting the broad humour of Mr. Bean to the early complicated word play of Blackadder might be a better way to express how underwhelmed some of us are by Mr. Bean. As I said the article so very enthusiastic and uncritical but that is unsurprising since fans are the people most likely to want to spend time editing and maintaining it.

== Mr.bean in spanish. ==kklløølæløl

Mr.bean also premeires on channel 47. A spanish channel. Mr.bean also when he speaks, he talks in spanish! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.90.4.28 (talk) 22:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Bean classification as "sketch comedy"

I am aware that there was a debate in 2006 regarding the classification of Mr. Bean (the show, not character) as either "sitcom" or "physical comedy". I contend that the show is a sketch comedy as there are no story arcs, there is rarely a reoccurring character, and each "sketch" is completely contained. The show operates like a sketch comedy show, but with only one reoccurring character. Ordosingularis (talk) 20:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't really want to stir this all up again, but your statement is correct to a certain extent - the early episodes are very much three sketches with a rough narrative, but it becomes increasingly difficult to categorise it this way when you look at later episodes such as "Mr Bean in Room 426", "Mind the Baby Mr Bean" and even the Christmas episode to a certain extent, which are clearly more like a situation comedy. Difficult to categorise, is how I would sum it up! Bob talk 03:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA sweeps (hold)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed:

  • Factual accuracy: since this article was assessed in 2006, GA crtieria have been tightened up considerably, especially with regard to referencing. As it stands, the article has significant gaps in its referencing and does not meet this GA criterion. Many sections are either unreferenced or sparsely referenced (for an example of adequate GA-standard referencing, look at Green Wing).
  • Of the references used, I have tagged a couple of dead links, and some of the others may be problematic. Click here to check the links.
  • We also recommend using the templates on WP:CITET to ensure citation format is consistent (although this is not a GA criterion and will not affect this reassessment).
  • Lead: this is intended to be a summary of, rether than an introduction to, the article. It should be expanded (per WP:LEAD) to fully summarise the rest of the article.
  • Layout: it may follow a more logical layout to have the Characters section further down the article, so it begins with the Origins and influences section.

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made and issues are being addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards, EyeSerenetalk 11:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA reassessment (pass)

Apologies for the massive delay in getting back to this article; I can only plead circumstances not entirely under my control ;) However, I now believe that most of the issues raised above have been addressed - the referencing is still sparse in places, but not to the point where the article no longer deserves its GA status. I have, however, commented out a couple of items in the Popular culture section that really should have explicit citations. I've updated the AH template to reflect this pass - thank you for your work! All the best, EyeSerenetalk 18:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mr. Bean's first name

...or Mr. Bean's full name

[edit] Message by 6birc

I'm giving consideration to one theory (yes, of my own authorship) that Mr. Bean's full name is Mr. Johnny "English"-Bean, with "Johnny English" being his nick name. Even if this had not been intended by the creators of the character from the beginning, they must acknowledge the consequences of their own developments, one of these being that certain further innovations are going to be more consistent with former developments than some other innovations.

Now, in spite of this personal conviction, I'm not extending my speculations into Wikipedia and claiming in the article that his first name is Johnny. I'm merely stating facts (Bob Castle: "probably original research"), for which references are present (Bob Castle: "no citation").

The two facts are:

  1. Every child in Poland knows Mr. Bean as Jaś Fasola, which does back-translate to "Johnny Bean". For reference, I did (redundantly) include the link to the Polish Wikipedia article PL:Jaś Fasola.

    I did fail to substantiate my claim that Jaś means "Johnny" because this fact seems too trivial to anybody who can speak both languages. Nonetheless I can substantiate it easily. Here, quotations from PL:Jan and its English interwiki John (first name), on "transformed and diminutive forms":

    "Przekształcenia i zdrobnienia: Hanko, Hanus, Jach, Janczy, Janek, Janik, Janisław, Janko, Janosik, Jasiek, Jaszko, Jaś, Jaśko, Jasio, Jasiu" (bold style added by me)
    "Pet, diminutive, alternative and other language forms are: (...) Johnny/Johnnie (...)" (bold style added by me)
  2. There are references in the Johnny English's character to the character of Mr. Bean. At least one of them figures readily mentioned in the article Johnny English:
    "The suit Johnny English wears before he becomes agent one is extremely similar to the suit Atkinson wore in Mr. Bean."

Despite the above, Bob Castle has reverted my edit, giving reasons that contradict the reality as I understand it.

If this extended explanation is convincing to Bob Castle, I'm asking him to permit my edit back into the article. The edit under dispute is no. 215338729.

6birc (talk), 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)~

[edit] Response by Bob Castle

I think it's best if personal theories are left out of this article. The whole point of WP:Verifiability is that you have to cite a reliable source within the article so that anybody looking it up can see if it's correct or not and it's a bad idea to cite another piece of original research on another Wikipedia page and claim it's fact, especially if you've added it yourself.

What with this being a Wikpedia Good Article and all that, it's probably best not to add it back unless Rowan Atkinson or somebody has specifically mentioned the Polish translation, which I imagine is highly unlikely. After all, it's pretty obvious that Johnny English isn't Mr Bean, but just another vaguely inept character played by Rowan Atkinson.

Incidentally, I've always assumed that the joke of the name "Johnny English" is a pun on the old expression "Johnny Foreigner" as a vaguely derogatory term for a non-British person. There's an admittedly not-very-reliable source that also gives that interpretation here: [1].

Bob talk 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response by 6birc

Dear Bob,

I'm glad to read your response.

You wrote:

"It's a bad idea to cite another piece of original research on another Wikipedia page and claim it's fact, especially if you've added it yourself."

I wasn't citing myself by referring to this passage:

"The suit Johnny English wears before he becomes agent one is extremely similar to the suit Atkinson wore in Mr. Bean."

...because I didn't write it. It would be a lamely concealed attempt at smuggling in "original research" indeed. Nonetheless, I can accept your view that the passage constitutes someone else's original research and, for this reason, "forget" it as whatever reference.

Still, I must stress it again:

"I'm not extending my speculations into Wikipedia and claiming in the article that his first name is Johnny. I'm merely stating facts."

...because you persist at missing this point. (Your response was: "It's best if personal theories are left out of this article.")

It is both a relevant and a notable fact that, in one local variant of Mr. Bean's fictional universe, a whole nation knows him by the first name "Johnny" (Jaś). It remains so even if Mr. Atkinson himself is not aware of it. (With all respect, he is not the sole creator.) For, somewhere, at some point, the producers must have authorised this translation if we assume that broadcasting these translations in Poland is in compliance with all copyrights. (It is extremely unlikely that it isn't.) Hence—worth mentioning in the section!

Doing so, and also mentioning another Mr. Atkinson's character "Johnny English" in the same line, as a notable, even if unintended, coincidence, does not constitute making an "original research"-theoretic claim that Mr. Bean's first name is "Johnny". It merely permits the reader to produce such a theory on his own, in private, from the legitimately presented collection of facts. This isn't against the principles in Wikipedia as I know them.

Now, whether there is enough effort from the authors to keep the mentioned fictional universe consistent backwards and across all its local editions, is a separate question.

As for the case of Mr. Bean's name seen once in the film as "Rowan", I'll give the following excerpt for your consideration:

"In the case of universes or universes that are rewritten or revised by different writers, editors or producers, this continuity may be violated."

—Wikipedia: Fictional universe #Format

Which innovations have priority over which in case of a violation of continuity? With our favourite character, it is either the name "Rowan", that represents such a violation, or it is the Polish name for "Johnny". There's no other alternative.

Here, instead of enforcing my own judgement, I'll let you judge this, by only letting you know that the Polish translation convention was older than the scene in which we can see the name "Rowan".

Or maybe, you simply wish to exclude the Polish "strand" of the Mr. Bean's character from "Mr. Bean"? But this might constitute "original research".

I'm sensing the possibility that you are experiencing an instinct urging you to exclude the Polish "strand" of Mr. Bean's character from "Mr. Bean" because it feels somewhat culturally intrusive, perhaps irrelevant to him, due to his being essentially English and having nothing to do with Poland. Like some voice shouting inside you: "Barbarians are trying to leave their mark on our national treasure without asking permit!"

I wouldn't blame you for having instincts but mind that such an exclusion might constitute "original research"...

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on "Johnny Foreigner". Very interesting!

6birc (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you might be taking this a bit too seriously, 6birc. To be honest, I don't even like the series that much. If you'd just written in the article "In the Polish translation of the series, 'Johnny' is his first name.+citation of English source" then there wouldn't be any problem, but unless you can cite a reliable source, preferably in English, it still ought to be left out. Bob talk 08:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not the type of person who only expends his energy on Very Important Things, thanks to my trust in serendipity. (We perhaps call these types mercantile, right?) I do have emotional distance to my theories on everything. (Cf. fallibilism.) Perhaps it's not self-evident in my texts, but I do take things easy. It's just that now this, not another issue, has randomly attracted my attention and I know no reason to modify this.

This is an interim response only.

6birc (talk) 21:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In other words, it's very usual for me to talk a lot about a little. "Words don't harm"—is another principle of mine. (Inflected from "Knowledge doesn't harm".) There are circumstances in which I try to reduce the size of my communications to their Kolmogorov complexity (or: to spare my words), but I do so in works intended as somewhat finished, complete and self-contained blocks of meaning, rather than "open-ended communications" like this. For example, I try to live up to the latter principle when doing Wikipedia articles.
6birc (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)