> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value. I

> You statement that "in that depth and meaning are what I value" is an explicit argument that there is no depth or meaning in what other people here value. I think, to the extent that it is an argument for that, it is offset by the question "(probably more likely) have I missed something?". That seems to be a clear indication that, since other people here do value it, FourthProtocol thinks it likely that the depth and meaning are there, just that they haven't found them. (I also think that many of us here, me included, have such an emotional attachment to HHGttG that it's easy to be offended by such statements, whereas clearly subjective statements like "Lisp is ugly and hard to read" and "Haskell is obscure and too obsessed with theory for a practical programmer to use" would, while surely provoking argument, probably not garner such an emotional response even from Lisp and Haskell fans.)