OK John, (and DMB mentioned) Discernment ... I'm talking quality not intellect. (Apart from choice of words, I don't think we're disagreeing.)
Highly "valued" rather than "valuable" - subtle, but I totally agree with you. It is the process of valuing that matters, not any inherent objective value. (See discernment, above) BTW DMB said ... "in cyberspace no one can hear me cry" That is such an important point ... about how difficult it is in text-based exchanges ... to pick-up the qualities that really matter. It takes rhetorical wit (of the kind you and Dave have) to make this stuff work. I'm a mere "rhetoricologist" by comparison. I know what I like and I like what I know. Back on topic - when Postman wrote, maybe the general balance of quality in TV was as you say. I have to say from first hand recent experience. the good stuff is still very good, but the crap is ever greater too - in all dimensions. You should stay in more ;-) Take care Ian On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 7:35 PM, John Carl <[email protected]> wrote: > Three cheers for Ian! > > I was hoping it would eventually penetrate your tv-fogged brain :) > Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
