Talk:Amusing Ourselves to Death/Archive 1

Moved
I have trimmed the entry for this book in Neil Postman to a bare minimum, and moved the existing treatment here, then cleaned it up a bit. This needs a major rewrite and expansion: this is an important book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.253.40.158 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 19 July 2004 (UTC)

Newspaper
i cloudly remember he wrote about newspapers as well, (i ll check if i stumble over this book again) 1 page papers y 18xx transforming from local citizen-related useful information to a global useless information today, aka ...what helps the information of a fallen sac of rice elsewhere to YOUR LIFE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roaming (talk • contribs) 22:10, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Planning Improvements
I am taking it upon myself to add telegraphy and photography as examples. The author stresses both as important predecessors to the television. -Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmichaels (talk • contribs) 01:09, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Rational argument?
I find it funny that rational argument is a red-link on Wikipedia. Someone should fix this. --Zemylat 05:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * get to the point already, POSTMAN! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.57.126 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Forward
I added the section Forward (by the author) firm in the belief that it is fair use (17 U.S.C. § 107) per subsections (1) Non-profit educational use; (3) Is a brief excerpt; (4) I have "sold" associates on the entire book based on a reading of the incisive forward. Futhermore, to my reading it complies with Wikipedia copyright policy. I shan't object if this change is reverted due to my misinterpretation (but would appreciate knowing where I went afoul) Fydfyd Fydfyd -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fydfyd (talk • contribs) 22:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversial?
The intro paragraph currently describes Amusing Ourselves to Death as a controversial book, can anyone put in something about why it's controversial? (I have no idea where I might find criticism of Postman's ideas.) For now, I will remove the reference to it being controversial. Emmett5 (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
The essential premise of the book, which Postman extends to the rest of his argument(s), is that "form excludes the content," that is, a particular medium can only sustain a particular level of ideas.

This could be explained more clearly. I should be obliged if someone clarified this sentence. Thank you. RedRabbit (talk) 14:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references
I wonder at the inclusion of this section. It appears to be a licensed trivial miscellany, a free-for-all for pointless facts, cheapening the serious content of the article. With this fact in view, would anyone object to the section's removal? Perhaps some emo band, somewhere, alludes to the book in its lyrics—would this merit an additional sentence? And the haphazard nature of the section will likely mean the section's content will be shoddily written. Besides, the section inadvertently illustrates the point of the book—that pointless entertainment appended to important information is apt to devalue the latter. Trash this section, I say. RedRabbit (talk) 15:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Thus Rational argument, integral to print typography, is militated against by the medium of television for the aforesaid reason.
Does wikipedia have a "This sentence is a crime against language" template? 69.211.50.139 (talk) 00:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikilink knowledge
Wikilink knowledge; simple easy and of potential interest to the wp reader, see WP:Audience. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 00:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Does anyone not think they know what knowledge means? Is the Wikipedia article of any help in understanding this?  No?  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)