Next, you'll be asked to connect with Twitter. Rest assured, we will never send a tweet from your account without your permission.
I'm not opposed to eBooks, in the same way I'm not opposed to candy bars. But candy bars are not real chocolate. Nor great food.
They're there to evoke a sense of possibility and grace about what it means to be human. eBooks really, really don't do this well.
Books aren't just there to dully consume. They're there to inspire, challenge, infuriate, and free us. eBooks don't do this well.
Furthermore, when I see a stack of books I've read, I remember and connect the ideas in different ways. Doesn't happen with eBooks.
When I read a real book, I flip back and forth, I connect ideas, I dogear, I (literally) feel. eBooks make all this harder.
Like I said last night. "Let them eat eBooks" isn't an expression of value or fairness; it's precisely the opposite.
My point isn't that ebooks don't have a place. But just because they're called "ebooks". doesn't make them a replacement for...books.
The beef's horse. The tuna's 80% some fish that causes oily anal leakage. What do you think the ebooks will end up being?
.@sbspalding I agree with you. But "Let them read Ebooks" also seems to me to be a convenient way to dehumanize the poor.
LOL, my dad just read my tweets about ebooks and said "Come on, you're an archconservative!! You're just like John Boehner!!".
The other thing I note is that the physical books in my library trigger thoughts and memories when I just see them. Ebooks, never.
One day, there won't be with drone sex, either. So? RT @frobot: .@umairh There's no material loss of fidelity with most ebooks.
I'm not saying ebooks don't have their place. But they're like horseburgers. Not a substitute for the real thing.
Ebooks are to books what digital audio is to vinyl. Missing the point, devaluing the purpose.
See what's Trending Now for @umairh