In revisiting their Stanford Law Review article, “Why Do We Tell the Same Stories: Law Reform, Critical Librarianship, and the Triple Helix Dilemma,” Professors Delgado and Stefancic contend that computer-assisted legal research has not proven to be a boon to the cause of law reform. At the time of the first article, the computer revolution, which irreversibly changed how we research legal questions, was just dawning. In this article, they focus again on categorical thinking, but this time to examine whether it is possible to transcend the categories our minds bring to computer-based searching when we do not know exactly what we are looking for. They describe and compare paper-based and computerized research tools, review some of the claims that have been made for the latter, and show how electronic searching retains many of the constraints of the print version. After surveying the pace of law reform in a few selected areas, they conclude that the computer revolution has not accelerated reform but very possibly slowed it. They posit a few reasons why this may be so and end with a number of suggestions for law reformers.