It really is scary how many people have this attitude, isn't it? A
couple of months ago at a meeting I sat across the table from our
state's Chief Information Officer. One of his staff members who's a
friend of mine introduced us and told him I wrote (she was just making
conversation until the meeting got underway, not trying to sell the man
a copy of something). His response? "I don't have time to read
books!" He said this very proudly, as if it meant his life obviously
was much more productive than mine...oh, I'm glad I work for a person
who reads.
Nina Osier
AnnyMiddon wrote:
> In a message dated 97-12-04 15:43:44 EST, nschaadt@TXCC.NET writes:
>
> > Would it be overstating the obvious to say that it takes less time
> to watch
> > a film than to read a book? Perhaps the popularity of such texts
> > (including magazines--which reproduce faster than rabbits) is fed
> by time
> > constraints.
>
> Time constraints seem to be the popular explanation. I've been told
> numerous
> times, "You read books? Gosh, I wish I had the time to read a book."
>
> But it sometimes seems that the people who say this have pride in
> their
> voices. It's as if they are saying that they are too busy with
> meaningful
> activities to do something frivolous like read.
>
> I believe that people generally find the time to do what they want to
> do. I
> read books, but I don't watch much TV, and I very rarely watch TV
> sports.
> Plenty of people in the US spend five or six hours on Sunday watching
> (American) football. Even a fairly slow reader can read half of a
> good-sized
> novel in that time.
>
> Anny
> AnnyMiddon@aol.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu May 25 2000 - 19:07:39 PDT