Of course, the same can be said for any linear, real time-based based form of communication, whether a telephone call, watching a movie, a school lesson, the minister's sermon, etc. There is no way to tell until the communication is concluded if there was content of interest, or how much. Perhaps we should just eliminate normal speach and just use systems that allow for fast-forwarding or accelerated viewing/listening so we will never have to waste any time.
I didn't hear the interview you cite, but I suspect that there were plenty of others who found more than two minutes of worthwhile information. And sometimes that two minutes is so important, it was worth putting up with the other 58 minutes. Gary Templeman -------------- Original message -------------- From: "John Carter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <snip>> > Unless you're part of the generation that abhors silence (which makes me > wonder whether they ever have any unique thoughts), there is little value > in a one hour interview that only has 2 minutes of information on topics > of interest to you. > > An example of too much time invested for value received was the Dear > Myrtle interview with Geoff R. which was 18 minutes into the hour and the > comments about Legacy 7 were 12 minutes into that interview. That was the > first Dear Myrtle session that I have listened to - and will probably be > the last. > <snip> > John > > > I just plain do not like these video interviews. I much prefer a > > transcript > > where I can skim it, read the parts that I wish to read and skip the rest. > > Also, if there is a point you want to refer back to, it is often difficult > > to locate and time consuming. Anybody else feel this way, or am I > > whistling in the wind?
