[Table of Contents] [Search]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Politikal Korrektness rears its appearance-challenged head

> Lavinia Adler wrote:
> Good grief, Jon!  That was quite an explosion!


Few things tick me off worse than "artists" bashing "tekkies," and "tekkies"
bashing "artists," because I count myself in both camps and I haven't yet
imploded like matter encountering anti-matter. This thread has had a
distinctly Luddite flavor; the addition of Politikal Korrektness was just too
much, and I hope you can forgive me for dousing it with Listerine.

To get back to the actual topic...

Books are good for some purposes. Electronic media are good for others. They
don't compete; they complement.  Anyone who fails to understand this doesn't
understand one technology or the other, or has a vested interest in one but
not the other. There is nothing like a press using hand-set metal type for
producing printed matter that is a treat for all the senses; there is nothing
like <insert your favorite page layout app here> and a 600-dpi laser printer
for putting together a document that looks decent and is ready when needed --
even if that's tomorrow by 9AM. Arguing about which is good and which is bad,
which is useful and which is not, is like arguing about whether a bicycle or a
sailboat is more useful: it kinda depends on whether you want to cross water
or dry land. I don't know why it's necessary to decide once and for all which
is better: Macs or PCs; Quark or Pagemaker; metal slugs or photopolymer
plates; light beer or dark beer. All have uses, and all are valid. Arguing
about which is better is arguing about tastes, nothing more, and that sort of
argument inevitably produces much heat and little light, and more often
polarizes further rather than reconciling.

[Subject index] [Index for current month] [Table of Contents] [Search]