Talk:Osmosis training: Difference between revisions
Just curious |
No edit summary |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Is it really necessary for people to know what osmosis training is called in Dutch? Will we get a 100 different names for that in 50 different languages? --[[User:Catalyst2950|Catalyst2950]] 00:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | Is it really necessary for people to know what osmosis training is called in Dutch? Will we get a 100 different names for that in 50 different languages? --[[User:Catalyst2950|Catalyst2950]] 00:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC) | ||
::I guess it isn't really necessary, but I thought I'd add a nice little anacdote. --[[User:Ukelele|ukelele]] 11:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC) | |||
::I think klaverjas-training is an older name for this phenomena than Osmosis, as it is was very early discovered in the Dutch community, especially the fed WeetJeWat. [YesJesse, without wiki-account] | |||
== Just curious == | == Just curious == | ||
Could anyone explain what | Could anyone explain what does osmosis have to do with this kind of training? I know what osmosis is, and what reverse osmosis is, and neither term seems to have anything in common with the process. | ||
/Escogido | /Escogido | ||
---- | |||
I think it's a take-off on the whole "learning by osmosis" joke where someone puts a book on their head and the knowledge is transported from the region of high concentration (the book) to the region of low concentration (the head). This sort of carry-over training isn't exactly the same thing, certainly, but I can see the conceptual similarity. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC) | |||
== List formatting == | |||
I think the list content makes the definition format the most logical one to use. If others would prefer to return to a bulletted list, then I'd suggest surrounding the definitions in paragraph tags (as the Klaverjas training bits are right now) to preserve indentation at the level of the bullets. --[[User:Mr Wednesday|Mr Wednesday]] 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:34, 21 December 2006
Is it really necessary for people to know what osmosis training is called in Dutch? Will we get a 100 different names for that in 50 different languages? --Catalyst2950 00:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
- I guess it isn't really necessary, but I thought I'd add a nice little anacdote. --ukelele 11:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
- I think klaverjas-training is an older name for this phenomena than Osmosis, as it is was very early discovered in the Dutch community, especially the fed WeetJeWat. [YesJesse, without wiki-account]
Just curious
Could anyone explain what does osmosis have to do with this kind of training? I know what osmosis is, and what reverse osmosis is, and neither term seems to have anything in common with the process.
/Escogido
I think it's a take-off on the whole "learning by osmosis" joke where someone puts a book on their head and the knowledge is transported from the region of high concentration (the book) to the region of low concentration (the head). This sort of carry-over training isn't exactly the same thing, certainly, but I can see the conceptual similarity. --Mr Wednesday 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
List formatting
I think the list content makes the definition format the most logical one to use. If others would prefer to return to a bulletted list, then I'd suggest surrounding the definitions in paragraph tags (as the Klaverjas training bits are right now) to preserve indentation at the level of the bullets. --Mr Wednesday 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
