Quoting Vandendrope (again).

Well, maybe not again, since whether this is the first or second time depends on how the reader works his or her way through these pages. But we won't continue riffing on that. I will, however, note that I'm considerably less fearful than Vandendorpe who writes:

Developing a thought in a fragmented hypertext mode can also result in constant flitting about, which can easily mask problems of internal consistency. There is a risk of a shift in the point of view, or even of contradicting positions stated elsewhere, without realizing it. It is easy to dismiss these concerns, blaming them on an outmoded concept of coherence. But insofar as an author writes for someone, one has to ask why a reader would want to follow the author's thinking on a subject if it lacks unity and contradicts itself. (p. 146)

It's not that I think that "coherence" is "an outmoded concept". I'm all for it. But straying from the straight and narrow isn't necessarily a sign of a lack of "internal consistency". I know that I contradict myself. I admit it. Often. And I'm far from convinced that that's a bad thing. I won't go as far as Walt Whitman who proudly proclaimed:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well, then, I contradict myself;
(I am large—I contain multitudes.)

but one of the most positive aspects of hypertext is that it permits, perhaps even invites, us to present multiple perspectives without having to fully choose one over another.

Go to: Yes, we've been through this before, or
Go to: Get to the point already!, or maybe Isn't that a bit oxymoronic?, or
Go to: How to write a Boidem column.