Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
but emotionally satisfying (just like I found 'War and Peace' too wordy,
when I have read it long time ago).
--
I totally agree. I found myself wondering whether it was done
intentionally - as though
Too long for me. Gave up reading up after two paragraphs. Does this prove
the article's point?
Sebi
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 10:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
but emotionally satisfying (just like I found
There are so many ways in which this article is bad. Bad research, bad
writing, faulty conclusions based on shakey premises. The title alone should
shy people away - it's sensationalistic. First - the author has no ability
to discern the difference between intellect/intelligence and literacy, or
gotta wade through all this thick ironizing here do y'all use spray
starch to help make the author's point? LOL.
Chris
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Jackie O'Hare [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Incidentally, I found the article too wordy for the ideas it described,
but emotionally
Generally, none of those adjectives readily describe Atlantic Monthly
articles (which also regularly hew to a requisite length-- 2,000 to 5,000
words-- I used to submit essays, and have the yellowing rejection slips to
prove it-- of which readers of the New Yorker and Harpers are also
accustomed).
True -
But did the writer ever answer or even deal with the title - Does Google
make people stupid? What I meant by sensationalistic is that he/editor
intentionally choose google to grab readers even if the article had nothing
to do with Google search making people cognitively impaired. The
I was struck just the other day by a Marshall McLuhan quotation I hadn't
looked at in a good long while. It really shocked me out of my perspective,
sort of a revisioning, or perhaps, McLuhan might say, with time, I began to
recognize the pattern in the media reversal.
It was his famous bit about
We have already gone/been tribal. Look at your twitter connections - that is
your tribe. And the tribes boundries is the map without a territory because
it exists in Eco's hyperreality.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 8:19 PM, Christine Boese [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I was struck just the other day by
