Complete [Politics/Philosophy]Enquiry Concerning Political Justice Vol.2- William Godwin-ag

[williamjones]

Thank you for your feedback.

I agree that 'boundless' sounds a little garbled at 6:44, and the tempo isn't what it should be, and I'll try to fix those issues and re-submit.

I believe, however, that we are using different texts, and I think I'm using the one identified at the front of this project -

https://archive.org/details/enquiryconcernin02godwuoft/page/n3/mode/2up

The other two boo-boos, at 4:06 and 8:57, are (I believe) consistent with the above.

Hey, Jim,
I've been guilty, in the past, of using (the clearer) PDF renderings instead of the "straight" html versions while PLing files, but now I always just click on the link in the First Post. I'm going to go check that again, right now.... Yep, I did it right this time. I even included a portion of the title page in my original PL note. Can you do the same from the source you read from? This is a mystery!

What about this? When one clicks on the First Page link, the photographic image of the source appears. But, if one scrolls the SCREEN down, one will see "Download Options", one of which is "PDF". By any chance did you choose one of these other options? I checked the PDF version just now and the title page is identical to the photographic one from which I PLed. So that's not our problem.

Here is what I found on the photographic version of the text on source text page 191:
If it be deemed criminal in any society to wear clothes of a par- ticular texture, or buttons of a particular composition, it is un- avoidable to exclaim, that it is high time the jurisprudence of that society should inform its members what are the fantastic rules by which they mean to proceed.

On this examination, I base my belief that we ARE reading was from different sources. Can you check it out, please? I'm curious about the source ( ) of the mystery.

[DeborahJoye]

Happy to read Section 21 On the Composition of Government.

[alg1001]

Happy to read Section 21 On the Composition of Government.

It is yours, DeborahJoye.
Thanks!
-Amy

[williamjones]

Thank you for your feedback.

I agree that 'boundless' sounds a little garbled at 6:44, and the tempo isn't what it should be, and I'll try to fix those issues and re-submit.

I believe, however, that we are using different texts, and I think I'm using the one identified at the front of this project -

https://archive.org/details/enquiryconcernin02godwuoft/page/n3/mode/2up

The other two boo-boos, at 4:06 and 8:57, are (I believe) consistent with the above.

Hey, Jim,
I've been guilty, in the past, of using (the clearer) PDF renderings instead of the "straight" html versions while PLing files, but now I always just click on the link in the First Post. I'm going to go check that again, right now.... Yep, I did it right this time. I even included a portion of the title page in my original PL note. Can you do the same from the source you read from? This is a mystery!

<snip>

On this examination, I base my belief that we ARE reading was from different sources. Can you check it out, please? I'm curious about the source ( ) of the mystery.

Jim,
Here's a possible reason why a PDF version of a text might differ from the photographic version at the Word-Level (not phrase or sentence level):
The process of converting a photographic, i.e., bit-graphic image, to text requires an OCR process. If the photo-source is of low resolution or low contrast, then the results will be a garble of letters WHICH A PROOF READER OF THE OCR RESULTS WILL HAVE TO INTERPRET AND REPLACE WITH WHAT THE PROOFER IMAGINES THE RIGHT WORD TO BE. This Interpretation-and-Replacement (garbled letters for a real word) is a possible cause for Word-level differences between the photographic text and any of the text renderings.
Whaddaya think about this?

[alg1001]

We are having so many problems with the source text. I am sorry all.
I'd like to blame William Godwin for it. He won't mind. haha

[Jddykst]

Amy - I think I fixed some of the issues you identified in your PL review, and I've re-submitted Section 42 at 31:16


https://librivox.org/uploads/alg1001/enquiry2_42_godwin_128kb.mp3

Regarding the text differences, I admit I'm confused, not being very tech-savvy. I'm still trying to figure it out. When I open the link provided on the 1st page, I get (what I think) is a PDF preview. That's what I've been using. I also get a screen section that gives me various options on opening the file, including PDF and TXT versions.

Regarding your first PL comment (for example), 'it is unavoidable to exclaim', which should be 'it is natural to exclaim', I haven't been able to find a version that includes 'natural'. I think both the PDF versions, and the TXT version, includes 'unavoidable'.

I'm happy to fix whatever needs to be fixed, I'm just not sure how to, and I'm not sure what I need to do to avoid similar issues going forward. Sorry about that.

[williamjones]

Amy - I think I fixed some of the issues you identified in your PL review, and I've re-submitted Section 42 at 31:16


https://librivox.org/uploads/alg1001/enquiry2_42_godwin_128kb.mp3

Regarding the text differences, I admit I'm confused, not being very tech-savvy. I'm still trying to figure it out. When I open the link provided on the 1st page, I get (what I think) is a PDF preview. That's what I've been using. I also get a screen section that gives me various options on opening the file, including PDF and TXT versions.

Regarding your first PL comment (for example), 'it is unavoidable to exclaim', which should be 'it is natural to exclaim', I haven't been able to find a version that includes 'natural'. I think both the PDF versions, and the TXT version, includes 'unavoidable'.

I'm happy to fix whatever needs to be fixed, I'm just not sure how to, and I'm not sure what I need to do to avoid similar issues going forward. Sorry about that.

OK, Jim, let me lay out how we (usually) get access to the contents of the books we narrate:
1) an old, moldy, oxidized copy of the original edition is found somewhere.
2) someone places the pages of that book on the glass bed of a scanner.
3) the result is a bunch of bitmap images (like .jpg or some such)
3) software takes these images created by the scanning process and tries to figure out what letters those tiny pixels came from. This is called OCR: Optical Character Recognition. Our eyes do an unequaled job of this, but computers are mediocre.
4) if the OCR can't make heads-or-tails of a character (e.g., is it "b" or is it "lo"?) it makes an educated guess.
5) If the book's pages are wrinkled or faded or stained, the OCR process is made more difficult.
6) That's why OCRed documents are proof read by HUMANS, who are, the last I heard, faillible (or tired or lazy).

So, when the Godwin 2 "read only from this source" is clicked, we're presented with a brownish view of a title page. The pages of this document, what I call the Raw Photographic Source, are legible and turnable.

However, if the full screen is scrolled, you will find several OCRed versions of the raw document. If they present TEXT contents of the file, then they have been OCRed and are liable to have been looked by a human, who might decide that "natural" is better than "unavoidable" or vice versa and replace the OCR errors with their choice.

I have to attend a Zoom session in 5 minutes, so I'm going to sign off for now. If you want clarification on what I've hurriedly written here. Lemme know and we can agree to meet again later.

Best o' Luck!

[Jddykst]

Thank you, i think I understand.

Amy had identified three corrections during her PL review. Unfortunately, I can find no difference, with respect to those corrections, between the .PDF version of this work, and the .TXT version.

So I'm still uncertain which of the several available file formats for this book should be used.

[williamjones]

Thank you, i think I understand.

Amy had identified three corrections during her PL review. Unfortunately, I can find no difference, with respect to those corrections, between the .PDF version of this work, and the .TXT version.

So I'm still uncertain which of the several available file formats for this book should be used.

Well, I now (after having my wrist slapped a couple of times) read from the photographic version of files. My human eyes have no trouble figuring out what the words are and I'm not tempted to replace the author's words with choices of my own. Read from the brown paper photographed pages.

[williamjones]

Thank you, i think I understand.

Amy had identified three corrections during her PL review. Unfortunately, I can find no difference, with respect to those corrections, between the .PDF version of this work, and the .TXT version.

So I'm still uncertain which of the several available file formats for this book should be used.

PDF or Txt both are the product of computer OCRing and human proofing.

[alg1001]

Thank you, i think I understand.

Amy had identified three corrections during her PL review. Unfortunately, I can find no difference, with respect to those corrections, between the .PDF version of this work, and the .TXT version.

So I'm still uncertain which of the several available file formats for this book should be used.

Hi Jim,
Bill has done all the proof listening. I can't take credit for his hard work!
There are download options in the Internet Archive. My choice would be the PDF or to read it online. I don't understand why these differences between Bill's are happening either.
Thanks,
Amy

[Jddykst]

https://librivox.org/uploads/alg1001/enquiry2_43_godwin_128kb.mp3

Section 43 submitted, at 11:13

(By the way, I'd re-submitted Section 42, hopefully with the problems resolved).

[williamjones]

https://librivox.org/uploads/alg1001/enquiry2_43_godwin_128kb.mp3

Section 43 submitted, at 11:13

(By the way, I'd re-submitted Section 42, hopefully with the problems resolved).

My BAD!! I didn't update the MW. Section 42 is PL OK!

[alg1001]

https://librivox.org/uploads/alg1001/enquiry2_43_godwin_128kb.mp3

Section 43 submitted, at 11:13

(By the way, I'd re-submitted Section 42, hopefully with the problems resolved).

Thanks for Section 43, Jim!
-Amy

[williamjones]

https://librivox.org/uploads/alg1001/enquiry2_43_godwin_128kb.mp3

Section 43 submitted, at 11:13

(By the way, I'd re-submitted Section 42, hopefully with the problems resolved).

My BAD!! I didn't update the MW. Section 42 is PL OK!

Proofing of Section 43:


Here is a perfect example where Jim read from one source and I am PLing from another source:
PL Note:
1:12 heard: "I mean, the topic of pardons"
s/b "I mean, the subject of pardons"
Text page 781, in photo original, but page 199 in the PDF version are the places this text is found.
This is a great case of my supposition of some person editing a word that OCR mangled. The photographic image text has "fubjedt". So, some person proofing this page, selected "topic" for the photographic text. If *I* were looking at the OCRed text and wanted to replace the "fubjedt" with something, I might very well have inserted the word "topic", too, but more likely I would have inserted "subject".

On the PDF version, on page 199 I see: "evidence : I mean the topic of pardons."

Notice the large discrepancy in the original text page numbers!!! I believe that this indicates that the OCRing was done on a completely different book than that shown in the first page of the project.

Jim, Amy, There is a difference between the texts specified in the first page of the project and the other, OCRed version offered as "DOWNLOAD OPTIONS"

Here is what I see when PLing from that specified document on the first page

but I do NOT see this in the PDF download text.

So, I conclude that *JIM* read from the PDF B&W text, while *I* am proofing from the text specified in the first page.

We need a tie-breaker: Amy, Which text should I proof from: that specified in the "read only from this text" or from the version Jim read from? I'm going to stop proofing until the tie-break is broken.