That's a horrible analogy. By that logic talking on the phone to somebody would be better than face to face because you only have to worry about one sensory input.

 

 

 

No, that is a strawman. Care to tell me how it's a horrible analogy without one of your own?

That's a horrible analogy. By that logic talking on the phone to somebody would be better than face to face because you only have to worry about one sensory input.

 

 

 

No, that is a strawman. Care to tell me how it's a horrible analogy without one of your own?

 

 

 

Your analogy stated that the more sensory inputs you are given (such as a movie with sound/visual) is harder to get the message across than a written discussion (visual). My analogy stated the same thing, talking with a person face to face (sound/visual) versus talking over the phone (sound). If you want the exact same analogy you can replace talking over the phone with texting (visual).

 

 

 

Your analogy is bad because group discussions can work just as well as discussions on a message board. Some people communicate better in person and some communicate better over forums, an extrovert will prefer the group discussion and an introvert will prefer the online discussion. Neither is more valid than the other.

It's a form of entertainment, no more or less valid than books, movies, music, ect...

 

I never said it wasn't said it wasn't a valid source of entertainment, because it sure as hell can be.

 

 

 

But are you arguing that books are just as detrimental/beneficial as TV?

 

 

 

Yes. I don't understand the elitism of people who only read books and will completely disregard another form of story telling. I love reading books, and I love watching TV.

 

 

 

The thing I dislike about TV as compared to books is that it doesn't engage your imagination as much. It's just not as much exercise for your mind to have everything given to you. Books make your mind create pictures - TV gives them to it with no work. And exercising your mind is good for it - if you've ever heard of the phrase 'neuroplasticity' you know what I mean. Neuroplasticity is the idea that the more you use certain parts of your mind, the larger and better-equipped they become to handle what you're using them for. Now, since watching TV does not engage you very much, it stands to reason that though it may not be detrimental, it's not as beneficial as other forms of entertainment. However enjoyable it is, I find that for me, something more engaging is more interesting than watching pictures on a screen move around without any input or effort from me.

 

 

 

And of course, there's just so much inane crap on TV that the good programs are swamped under. Just like everyone else has said.

The thing I dislike about TV as compared to books is that it doesn't engage your imagination as much. It's just not as much exercise for your mind to have everything given to you. Books make your mind create pictures - TV gives them to it with no work. And exercising your mind is good for it - if you've ever heard of the phrase 'neuroplasticity' you know what I mean. Neuroplasticity is the idea that the more you use certain parts of your mind, the larger and better-equipped they become to handle what you're using them for. Now, since watching TV does not engage you very much, it stands to reason that though it may not be detrimental, it's not as beneficial as other forms of entertainment. However enjoyable it is, I find that for me, something more engaging is more interesting than watching pictures on a screen move around without any input or effort from me.

 

 

 

And of course, there's just so much inane crap on TV that the good programs are swamped under. Just like everyone else has said.

 

 

 

Why do I always hear the imagination argument from anti-TV people? It's like they have no imaginations themselves. I even thought about writing this in my first post in small letters so people wouldn't see it but I could quote it when someone did bring it up: "Let's see how long it takes for the imaginative people who read books to bring up the imagination argument".

 

 

 

EDIT: That sounded mean, and didn't disprove the imagination argument at all. I just find the imagination argument funny since it is stated over and over, and nothing new is said, and it is about imagination :) .

The thing I dislike about TV as compared to books is that it doesn't engage your imagination as much. It's just not as much exercise for your mind to have everything given to you. Books make your mind create pictures - TV gives them to it with no work. And exercising your mind is good for it - if you've ever heard of the phrase 'neuroplasticity' you know what I mean. Neuroplasticity is the idea that the more you use certain parts of your mind, the larger and better-equipped they become to handle what you're using them for. Now, since watching TV does not engage you very much, it stands to reason that though it may not be detrimental, it's not as beneficial as other forms of entertainment. However enjoyable it is, I find that for me, something more engaging is more interesting than watching pictures on a screen move around without any input or effort from me.

 

 

 

And of course, there's just so much inane crap on TV that the good programs are swamped under. Just like everyone else has said.

 

 

 

Why do I always hear the imagination argument from anti-TV people? It's like they have no imaginations themselves. I even thought about writing this in my first post in small letters so people wouldn't see it but I could quote it when someone did bring it up: "Let's see how long it takes for the imaginative people who read books to bring up the imagination argument".

 

 

 

You hear it because it's true. How could it not be? Books engage your imagination. Television, not so much. The only reason it's around so much is because it's a very legitimate argument. It has a lot of weight, and it's something to consider if you're considering TV vs. books. Why do I hear you knocking the argument without providing any specific refutation?

Your analogy stated that the more sensory inputs you are given (such as a movie with sound/visual) is harder to get the message across than a written discussion (visual).

 

 

 

Not really. My point was more about how things are more eloquent in written form because then it's harder for the hectic everyday aspects of life to interfere. I don't recall mentioning anything about sensory input at all.

 

 

 

This applies to movies because there is going to be more running through your head than if you were to just read a book. (His nose is big, this song reminds me of prom, she squeaks when she talks.) Not only that, but finding the remote and rewinding is a lot more work than skimming back a few sentences to reread, so it's easier to miss something in a movie than it is to miss something in a book.

 

 

 

Basically what I'm arguing is that nothing can replace written discussion and be as effective. It might come close, but nothing will ever surpass it. How can something be more effective at getting a point across than raw discussion? Saying that television is exactly the same as books has to be one of the biggest stretches I ever heard.

 

 

 

Why do I always hear the imagination argument from anti-TV people? It's like they have no imaginations themselves. I even thought about writing this in my first post in small letters so people wouldn't see it but I could quote it when someone did bring it up: "Let's see how long it takes for the imaginative people who read books to bring up the imagination argument".

 

 

 

It is true. There are many great lyricists who express the fact that general and vague lyrics are so powerful because they're flexible and can be applied to anybody. With a movie, you're pretty much forced to think something looks/sounds/acts/feels a certain way. With a book you can personally fill in those gaps, which contributes towards a more emotional experience.

 

 

 

PS: You do know what you're trying to defend, right?

You hear it because it's true. How could it not be? Books engage your imagination. Television, not so much. The only reason it's around so much is because it's a very legitimate argument. It has a lot of weight, and it's something to consider if you're considering TV vs. books. Why do I hear you knocking the argument without providing any specific refutation?

 

 

 

I didn't refute it because I don't have a good refutation. I just said that I was going to mention it in my first post since someone inevitably brings it up, and it is funny to me that people with good imaginations form reading books always have the same arguments.

 

 

 

Not really. My point was more about how things are more eloquent in written form because then it's harder for the hectic everyday aspects of life to interfere. I don't recall mentioning anything about sensory input at all.

 

 

 

This applies to movies because there is going to be more running through your head than if you were to just read a book. (His nose is big, this song reminds me of prom, she squeaks when she talks.) Not only that, but finding the remote and rewinding is a lot more work than skimming back a few sentences to reread, so it's easier to miss something in a movie than it is to miss something in a book.

 

 

 

Basically what I'm arguing is that nothing can replace written discussion and be as effective. It might come close, but nothing will ever surpass it. Saying that television is exactly the same as books has to be one of the biggest stretches I ever heard.

 

 

 

It is true. There are many great lyricists who express the fact that general and vague lyrics are so powerful because they're flexible and can be applied to anybody. With a movie, you're pretty much forced to think something looks/sounds/acts/feels a certain way. With a book you can personally fill in those gaps, which contributes towards a more emotional experience.

 

 

 

PS: You do know what you're trying to defend, right?

 

 

 

I am attempting to defend a form of communicating stories to people. Why am I defending TV? Because book elitists annoy me.

 

 

 

EDIT: If the creator of a story wants you to see things a certain way, like for example a starship in a movie, you might not see it the same way if you picture it in your head. So which way is better? The way that the author wanted you to see it, or what your imagination creates? The answer will be different for different things. Lets take a classic look at Star Wars IV, when they are seeing the Death Star for the first time. Now you could describe something as being huge in a book pretty well, and the reader can imagine what you mean pretty well. But seeing the Millennium Falcon, which you got an idea for how big it is earlier in the movie, getting closer and closer, and the Death Star getting bigger and bigger until it goes into a small hole which is actually a huge room gives you a good idea of actually how big it is. This is accomplished fairly quickly in a movie, and George Lucas got to convey just how big the DS is. Is this a less valid way of story telling because you didn't get to imagine as much, even if you would imagine it to be bigger or smaller than he wanted to convey?

You hear it because it's true. How could it not be? Books engage your imagination. Television, not so much. The only reason it's around so much is because it's a very legitimate argument. It has a lot of weight, and it's something to consider if you're considering TV vs. books. Why do I hear you knocking the argument without providing any specific refutation?

 

 

 

I didn't refute it because I don't have a good refutation. I just said that I was going to mention it in my first post since someone inevitably brings it up, and it is funny to me that people with good imaginations form reading books always have the same arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh =P I see. And here was me thinking we could have a big fight now too =( I was looking forward to it.

 

 

 

However, your linking us having the same arguments with not having an imagination isn't fair at all - if it's a good idea, why not stick with it? Nobody's come up with a fair defense yet, so why should we change our attack just to prove our imaginativeness?

 

 

 

 

I am attempting to defend a form of communicating stories to people. Why am I defending TV? Because book elitists annoy me.

 

 

Really? That's a little disappointing. I was kinda hoping you believed what you were saying =P

I am attempting to defend a form of communicating stories to people. Why am I defending TV? Because book elitists annoy me.

 

 

 

I hate books. I don't have to like them to know that they are more effective at getting points across than television though. Of course there are some exceptions - informative television is better at giving you the idea of what Africa looks like, what kind of spiders to stay away from, etc. But as for fictional stories, logical discussion, and the likes, literature takes the cake.

Really? That's a little disappointing. I was kinda hoping you believed what you were saying =P

 

 

 

Well I do somewhat. You got me on the imagination part, but I also like to look at it from the creators point of view. Maybe they want to give you a vague idea and let your imagination fill in the rest. But I think it is just as valid for them to want to show you what they were imagining.

 

 

 

EDIT:

I hate books. I don't have to like them to know that they are more effective at getting points across than television though. Of course there are some exceptions - informative television is better at giving you the idea of what Africa looks like, what kind of spiders to stay away from, etc. But as for stories and the likes, literature takes the cake.

 

 

 

I've never thought about the getting points across argument before today, so I haven't had time to think about it. But I believe you can convey non-informative stories just as well with TV as with books. Once you really get into a TV series and get to a good episode (usually about a death) you are fully engrossed in the story. Your mind may wander a little, but that happens when reading books also. During the really good parts you are fully in the story. I don't want to spoil any shows, so I'll just mention S2E20 of Battlestar Galactica. The first time watching that I was no where else in my mind. The last ten minutes you are feeling the tension, you are thinking WTF??? and you are trying to figure out where it is going. Of course the next few times watching it you are thinking "man six looks hot" or "hey I know that guy from something else".

Really? That's a little disappointing. I was kinda hoping you believed what you were saying =P

 

 

 

Well I do somewhat. You got me on the imagination part, but I also like to look at it from the creators point of view. Maybe they want to give you a vague idea and let your imagination fill in the rest. But I think it is just as valid for them to want to show you what they were imagining.

 

That's fair enough, and they're certainly allowed to do that, but it's admittedly not as beneficial to you as reading a book would be, right?

Really? That's a little disappointing. I was kinda hoping you believed what you were saying =P

 

 

 

Well I do somewhat. You got me on the imagination part, but I also like to look at it from the creators point of view. Maybe they want to give you a vague idea and let your imagination fill in the rest. But I think it is just as valid for them to want to show you what they were imagining.

 

That's fair enough, and they're certainly allowed to do that, but it's admittedly not as beneficial to you as reading a book would be, right?

 

 

 

Well even with the creator showing a lot of stuff that you no longer get to visualize I still think that you can have an active imagination while watching a TV show. You just have to watch the right ones. For example during the whole first season of Lost we didn't get to see the monster at all. There was tons of stuff to imagine about that show, but it wasn't about what the writer was describing to you. So when a writer was describing Kate as a cute brunette you don't get to imagine her, since you are already shown her, you spend more time imagining about what is going on in the story.

I've never thought about the getting points across argument before today, so I haven't had time to think about it. But I believe you can convey non-informative stories just as well with TV as with books. Once you really get into a TV series and get to a good episode (usually about a death) you are fully engrossed in the story. Your mind may wander a little, but that happens when reading books also. During the really good parts you are fully in the story. I don't want to spoil any shows, so I'll just mention S2E20 of Battlestar Galactica. The first time watching that I was no where else in my mind. The last ten minutes you are feeling the tension, you are thinking WTF??? and you are trying to figure out where it is going. Of course the next few times watching it you are thinking "man six looks hot" or "hey I know that guy from something else".

 

 

 

Yes, that's true. Sometimes things such as sound and sight can even add to your overall viewing experience instead of taking away from it too. I was never really trying to bash television - in fact, my first post on this thread was me listing the benefits of it. Right now I'm just saying things are generally more eloquent on paper than anywhere else (which evolved into a tv VS book argument). One of the main reasons I say this is because people can sound a lot smarter on the internet than they really are in real life. Another reason is because the few books that I did read were far more enlightening than the many many movies I've watched. It's simply a more pure form of communication.

 

 

 

Let's face it. The majority is more interested in television than books at this day and age. Marketers use this to their advantage by making it a lot more entertainment-oriented than it is with books. Literature usually has stronger morals and don't have all the Hollywood fluff movies have that's only there in order for it to sell easier. Pretty girls, violence, and stuff like that are prime examples. Having a pretty girl for a character in a movie is almost mandatory now.

Let's face it. The majority is more interested in television than books at this day and age. Marketers use this to their advantage by making it a lot more entertainment-oriented than it is with books. Literature usually has stronger morals and don't have all the Hollywood fluff movies have that's only there in order for it to sell easier. Pretty girls, violence, and stuff like that are prime examples. Having a pretty girl for a character in a movie is almost mandatory now.

 

This is what disappoints me about TV, and what turns me off of it. Books cater more to me as a reader than TV shows ever can as a viewer, because they can still be published if they're not instantly mass-marketable. TV shows have to follow the formula that works to get on the air, and if they're not instantly popular with the lowest common denominator, they're out. And to be fair, the lowest common denominator usually isn't all that into using their imaginations. Sure, visual/auditory input can be useful - but the last time I was engrossed in a movie the way I can get engrossed in any worthwhile book was... I can't think of when I watched a movie that engaged me that much. Maybe that's just me, but I still tend to think of TV as a more vegetative experience than reading a book, and vegetative isn't good for you.

 

 

 

I guess I'm just not the majority =P But then again, everyone's worrying about average health and etcetera declining, so maybe I'll stick with my books. And my outdoors. And my things that require thought =P

 

 

 

That may well be a generalization (and I totally planned to end this post here, in case you couldn't tell =P), but realistically, TV does not ever require engagement. People often have TV in the background, or do other things while they watch it - it's not something that intrigues you and activates your brain the way a book does. When was the last time you saw someone doing their ironing while reading a book? It doesn't often happen. Books are the mental equivalent of a brisk jog, to TV's chillin' on the couch.

It's a form of entertainment, no more or less valid than books, movies, music, ect...

 

I never said it wasn't said it wasn't a valid source of entertainment, because it sure as hell can be.

 

 

 

But are you arguing that books are just as detrimental/beneficial as TV?

 

 

 

I would argue that TV--good TV--is as beneficial as books. I think people tend to overlook the genuinely good creative efforts out there, because they sure can be drowned out in the stuff that isn't so great. Television can be as much of an art form as literature; the stories are simply conveyed through a different medium.

 

 

 

And anyone who condemns television for an abundance of crap and holds up books like they are sacred is deluding himself. There is just as much blatant crap out there in the literary world. The difference is that we know where to look to find the good stuff. Having school courses dedicated to studying them and their place in a very long history helps. People don't have to filter through the crap, which makes it seem like it doesn't exist. It's a shame that no such opportunity exists for television.

 

 

 

I'm not defending a lifestyle of sitting in front of the TV, because that's pretty obviously detrimental and there's no way to avoid the "bad stuff" that scheduled programming places in front of you. I'm just saying that there's more merit to TV than people give it credit for.

 

 

 

I think most people opposed to television in general are trying to be elitist or sound like a smart-[wagon]. In this thread, we are weighing the good and the bad of television and labeling it as good, bad, detrimental, or beneficial based on which side of the scale is drooping down. Many horrible things do have their upsides, and just because someone is against the horrible thing doesn't mean they lack some hindsight that the supporters for this thing have. It can just mean they believe that the abundance of "horrible" far outweighs the "good".

No television in this household. I hold a similar opinion to yours, in that computing is vastly different. If I ever get seriously bored, I do venture to Hulu.

I really only watch like discovery, history, food and weather channels.

That may well be a generalization (and I totally planned to end this post here, in case you couldn't tell =P), but realistically, TV does not ever require engagement. People often have TV in the background, or do other things while they watch it - it's not something that intrigues you and activates your brain the way a book does. When was the last time you saw someone doing their ironing while reading a book? It doesn't often happen. Books are the mental equivalent of a brisk jog, to TV's chillin' on the couch.

 

 

 

Audiobooks are your friend, you can listen while doing all kinds of other stuff. I've listened to a ton of them, but my favourites so far have been The Iliad and The Odyssey. Had a hard time reading them, but a well translated version that is read well (Ian McKellen was reading one of them) really gives you the full effect of the way it was written.

There's always channels like discovery and history which can be entertaining (to an extent) and informational.

 

 

Haha, well you see, there's a problem in that. Even reality shows are creeping in the nerd's channels: Whale Wars, Ice Road Truckers, Axemen, etc.

 

 

 

Which how the hell are Ice Road and Axemen history?

 

 

 

Well I mean the documentary type things, those are more like reality shows.

This is what disappoints me about TV, and what turns me off of it. Books cater more to me as a reader than TV shows ever can as a viewer, because they can still be published if they're not instantly mass-marketable. TV shows have to follow the formula that works to get on the air, and if they're not instantly popular with the lowest common denominator, they're out.

 

 

 

I think you'll have a very hard time defending that statement. If you're not already established as a successful author, it's nearly impossible to be published unless you have connections or a work designed to cater to a target audience--and even then it depends on whether that target audience will bring suitable revenue. Big publishing houses suck. Of course you can always self-publish, but that takes a helluva lot of money. And rich dudes are just as likely to publish crap as they are legitimate fiction. Christopher Paolini >_>

 

 

 

I don't disagree that it's a bigger problem with television. But sometimes you have to think beyond the "lowest common denominator" and give TV viewers a bit more credit. Something that is insanely popular can still be excellent. (Lost, Season 1 of Heroes, BSG, etc.)

 

 

 

I think most people opposed to television in general are trying to be elitist or sound like a smart-[wagon]. In this thread, we are weighing the good and the bad of television and labeling it as good, bad, detrimental, or beneficial based on which side of the scale is drooping down. Many horrible things do have their upsides, and just because someone is against the horrible thing doesn't mean they lack some hindsight that the supporters for this thing have. It can just mean they believe that the abundance of "horrible" far outweighs the "good".

 

 

 

The thread is titled "Detrimental Effects of Television," so one would assume that the thesis is "TV is bad" and here we are citing evidence to support it. But OK. Like Indy, book elitists annoy me, so I had to say something.

 

I think most people opposed to television in general are trying to be elitist or sound like a smart-[wagon]. In this thread, we are weighing the good and the bad of television and labeling it as good, bad, detrimental, or beneficial based on which side of the scale is drooping down. Many horrible things do have their upsides, and just because someone is against the horrible thing doesn't mean they lack some hindsight that the supporters for this thing have. It can just mean they believe that the abundance of "horrible" far outweighs the "good".

 

 

 

The thread is titled "Detrimental Effects of Television," so one would assume that the thesis is "TV is bad" and here we are citing evidence to support it. But OK. Like Indy, book elitists annoy me, so I had to say something.

 

My point is that I believe you are perceiving what I believe to be an opinion of hindsight, as a characteristic of elitism.

 

 

 

Also, on your argument against Klankaos:

 

Do you really believe the book reader has even a comparable amount of books to choose from as the tv-watcher does for television shows?

 

The library of congress has over 32 million books. Has there even been ten-thousand television programs since the birth of the television?

 

 

 

As for easiness of publishing, thousands of authors every year use the technology of the internet to publish their own books. I know two people personally who used a self-publishing website called Lulu.com for their books. As for mainstream publishing, there are far more publishers in the United States than there are television networks. And on average, each of these publishers publish an exponentially greater amount of authors than television networks do for television programs.

I only started watching TV when I was about 6 or 7, and since then have only watched a few favourite shows each week. Lately it's been at most 1 hour a week. I don't think TV is too bad if viewed in moderation.

 

 

 

Also, what does define TV ?

 

 

 

Any video that you watch on the piece of hardware known as "TV" ?

 

 

 

Because, as l0rd, mentioned Hulu is TV on your computer. Does slotting in a DVD into the TV count as TV ? Or buying box sets or even torrenting serials count, because what difference is there, really ?

 

 

 

For users like Das and How2PK, who are compulsive and fanatical buyers of movies, serials and other things, is "TV" bad for them ?

 

 

 

Personally I think that TV does dampen individual thought and creativity but only to the extent that you are watching it - 3 to 4 hours or more a day. Addiction [however given the number of advertisments, would be hard] is also common. Also, there are "cases" in which "the brain" is directly affected, - but I dont believe in that, and up untill now has been unverified.

 

 

 

Another thing I'd like to bring up is, not so much as the actual "TV" itself, but the advertisments for alcohol, overly unhealthy food and other such things.

I am a massive fan of television as an art form. To those who say that reading a book takes more imagination than watching a TV program I would suggest that they aren't using enough imagination. I use my own imagination with television all the time, wondering about all the things left unsaid, the background of characters and their motivation.

 

 

 

Found quite funny the guy on the last page who said TV made people unhealthy because they didn't go outdoors and that he'd rather stick with his books - I know he said and his outdoors too but the point is he has both, why would he assume that someone watching TV has any less potential to have both?

 

 

 

Mostly I'd concentrate on the argument for it as an art form and an artistic and informational medium. As an informational resource it is second only to the internet and thats a pretty good achievement. As a medium, is it surely only different to other mediums in form and neither better nor worse. Is a painting better than a sculpture? Is a watercolour better than an oils, neither they are simply different mediums and have different properties. It is simply that individual efforts in a particular medium may suit or not suit that medium.

 

 

 

There are artists out there who repeatedly redefine the genre of television showing again and again how much can be done with the medium in the areas of story telling and factual documentary, think of the Sopranos, or Lost or Queer as Folk (the UK version), or David Attenboroughs wildlife documentaries or the RI Christmas lectures, film too is constantly recreating itself. TV is also one of the best arenas for accessibility, people can see so many different sides to life that they would never have experienced if it weren't for television. How often do you go to a book store or library and just choose a book randomly without knowing anything about it, yet channel surfing on a TV is as easy as pressing a button and the channels are spaced out so that even just going from one channel you normally watch to another you pass through channels you wouldnt ordinarily watch.

 

 

 

Me = passionate about TV :)

I am a massive fan of television as an art form. To those who say that reading a book takes more imagination than watching a TV program I would suggest that they aren't using enough imagination. I use my own imagination with television all the time, wondering about all the things left unsaid, the background of characters and their motivation.

 

So are you thinking that I don't use my imagination to think of those things when I read? I do that too - in addition to all the imagining the sensory input that you get with TV. It takes more imagination, because I do everything you do and then some when I read a book.

 

 

Found quite funny the guy on the last page who said TV made people unhealthy because they didn't go outdoors and that he'd rather stick with his books - I know he said and his outdoors too but the point is he has both, why would he assume that someone watching TV has any less potential to have both?

 

You're taking that out of context. I was talking about how I consider TV a more vegetative experience than reading a book, not how people who read books get outside more. The outdoors thing was an addendum to a point already made, not a point in and of itself.

 

TV is also one of the best arenas for accessibility, people can see so many different sides to life that they would never have experienced if it weren't for television. How often do you go to a book store or library and just choose a book randomly without knowing anything about it, yet channel surfing on a TV is as easy as pressing a button and the channels are spaced out so that even just going from one channel you normally watch to another you pass through channels you wouldnt ordinarily watch.

 

TV is not to video as bookstore is to books. TV is to video as library is to books. I often go to the library and pick something off the shelves that just looks interesting, not necessarily something I would normally pick, just as you do while channel surfing.

So are you thinking that I don't use my imagination to think of those things when I read? I do that too - in addition to all the imagining the sensory input that you get with TV. It takes more imagination, because I do everything you do and then some when I read a book.

 

No, I'm saying that TV can be an imaginative experience. Please don't take everything I've said as a critisism of anything you've said. I'm stating positives of television which doesn't imply that anything else is negative. Books are great.

 

 

 

Found quite funny the guy on the last page...

You're taking that out of context.

 

Yep I am, it was funny, thats all

 

 

 

I often go to the library and pick something off the shelves that just looks interesting, not necessarily something I would normally pick, just as you do while channel surfing.

 

But its the ease at which it happens which is my point. I go to the library I might pick up a couple of books I know nothing about and bring them home and read them. If I get a few chapters in and they do nothing for me I have to go back to the library for another one. With TV there is no distance between you and it, your engagement with it is on an instant basis, if you dont like it you can move on, and indeed came back to it.

 

Of course this does cause a problem in that program makers adapt to this and the medium devote its resources to grabbing your attention at the expense of the long term viewing, but I think on balance this trade is a good one.