This forum

[Scrapper]

I've never owned a car new enough to have a  CD Player. I like cassette decks.
3 different 90's cars right  now.

My friend has a brand new Camry... it doesn't have cassette or CD... it has bluetooth and wi-fi!  She can play music, audio books, etc.  It will also compose and/or read her emails and texts to her.  Pretty freaking schnazzy!

[Scrapper]

Most libraries have books on cd that you can rent for free.  
Listen to the books while driving, riding a bike, walking, cooking, cleaning, sitting in a chair enjoying the fresh air.

CD???  I can't remember the last time I played a CD.  I certainly don't have a CD player in my car.     But I have listened to some books on audiofiles.

I can rent those through my local library as well.... online.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

It's true you can get audiofiles...not sure if I've every looked into doing that.   Hmmmm.

It's super easy!

[bbqboy]

Actually, you can stream stuff from the Jackson County Library.

[tvguy]

I'd argue it. I doubt that there is a two hour documentary that will provide anywhere near the information found in "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich".

So you could read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in two hours?

That says SO much about you!

Really?  Like what?

Like he is willing to devote only 2 hours to learning anything, I guess?

That's a ridiculous assumption that comes from you not being able to follow a conversation.

You are the one who compared a book that would take many many hours to read to a TWO HOUR documentary.

I simply said...."But If I wanted to learn about WW2 in two hours. What would be the most informational . A book or a documentary?"

Key words....IN TWO HOURS!   I think maybe when you don't have a good answer you just act like you don't hear me.

[Wonky3]

So you could read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich in two hours?

That says SO much about you!

Really?  Like what?

Like he is willing to devote only 2 hours to learning anything, I guess?

That's a ridiculous assumption that comes from you not being able to follow a conversation.

You are the one who compared a book that would take many many hours to read to a TWO HOUR documentary.

I simply said...."But If I wanted to learn about WW2 in two hours. What would be the most informational . A book or a documentary?"

Key words....IN TWO HOURS!   I think maybe when you don't have a good answer you just act like you don't hear me.

I think I followed the conversation. 
You want to "learn about WW2 in two hours"? 

[tvguy]

That says SO much about you!

Really?  Like what?

Like he is willing to devote only 2 hours to learning anything, I guess?

That's a ridiculous assumption that comes from you not being able to follow a conversation.

You are the one who compared a book that would take many many hours to read to a TWO HOUR documentary.

I simply said...."But If I wanted to learn about WW2 in two hours. What would be the most informational . A book or a documentary?"

Key words....IN TWO HOURS!   I think maybe when you don't have a good answer you just act like you don't hear me.

I think I followed the conversation. 
You want to "learn about WW2 in two hours"? 

That's not what I said. If I ONLY had two hours could I learn the most watching a documentary or reading a book.

You know the answer is the documentary, you just can't admit it.

[Wonky3]

Really?  Like what?

Like he is willing to devote only 2 hours to learning anything, I guess?

That's a ridiculous assumption that comes from you not being able to follow a conversation.

You are the one who compared a book that would take many many hours to read to a TWO HOUR documentary.

I simply said...."But If I wanted to learn about WW2 in two hours. What would be the most informational . A book or a documentary?"

Key words....IN TWO HOURS!   I think maybe when you don't have a good answer you just act like you don't hear me.

I think I followed the conversation. 
You want to "learn about WW2 in two hours"? 

That's not what I said. If I ONLY had two hours could I learn the most watching a documentary or reading a book.

You know the answer is the documentary, you just can't admit it.

Whatever...I'm really getting tired of this crap.

In post #44 

Juniper said:

One reason could be that books pack a lot more information in than documentaries.

 And you replied:

"In the same amount of time?"

And things went downhill from there. Who the hell is talking about time? We were talking about the value of reading. You gave good examples of the value of documentaries, specials like how to skin animals, etc. and it changes NOTHING. 
Watch TV AND read!


So argue with yourself.

[Valuesize]

That's not what I said. If I ONLY had two hours could I learn the most watching a documentary or reading a book.

You know the answer is the documentary, you just can't admit it.

Just so you know, I understood the first time you said it. 

[tvguy]

That's not what I said. If I ONLY had two hours could I learn the most watching a documentary or reading a book.

You know the answer is the documentary, you just can't admit it.

Just so you know, I understood the first time you said it. 

You know what? I think Wonky did too and he's just being a dick.

[bbqboy]

This is pretty cool. We're all pissed at Wonky across different threads on various subjects. It seems to boil down to Wonky thinks we're too ignorant to read a book on Vietnam so we have to watch instead. Oh. We don't know where to eat Mexican food either.
Or something like that. We might as well have one megathread.

[Juniper]

Really?  Like what?

Like he is willing to devote only 2 hours to learning anything, I guess?

That's a ridiculous assumption that comes from you not being able to follow a conversation.

You are the one who compared a book that would take many many hours to read to a TWO HOUR documentary.

I simply said...."But If I wanted to learn about WW2 in two hours. What would be the most informational . A book or a documentary?"

Key words....IN TWO HOURS!   I think maybe when you don't have a good answer you just act like you don't hear me.

I think I followed the conversation. 
You want to "learn about WW2 in two hours"? 

That's not what I said. If I ONLY had two hours could I learn the most watching a documentary or reading a book.

You know the answer is the documentary, you just can't admit it.

Definitely more from the documentary.

[Juniper]

Like he is willing to devote only 2 hours to learning anything, I guess?

That's a ridiculous assumption that comes from you not being able to follow a conversation.

You are the one who compared a book that would take many many hours to read to a TWO HOUR documentary.

I simply said...."But If I wanted to learn about WW2 in two hours. What would be the most informational . A book or a documentary?"

Key words....IN TWO HOURS!   I think maybe when you don't have a good answer you just act like you don't hear me.

I think I followed the conversation. 
You want to "learn about WW2 in two hours"? 

That's not what I said. If I ONLY had two hours could I learn the most watching a documentary or reading a book.

You know the answer is the documentary, you just can't admit it.

Whatever...I'm really getting tired of this crap.

In post #44 

Juniper said:

One reason could be that books pack a lot more information in than documentaries.

 And you replied:

"In the same amount of time?"

And things went downhill from there. Who the hell is talking about time? We were talking about the value of reading. You gave good examples of the value of documentaries, specials like how to skin animals, etc. and it changes NOTHING. 
Watch TV AND read!


So argue with yourself.

Well, you are retired. You have that luxury. Like I said, for about twenty years there I could do very little reading or watching TV.  I still read and watch TV.  But, as I said, I'm not the fastest reader and I have some attention issues so watching a show could be much more informative for me.  I think reading is good. People should do it if:
A. They want to.  And
B. They want to.

[Juniper]

Most libraries have books on cd that you can rent for free.  
Listen to the books while driving, riding a bike, walking, cooking, cleaning, sitting in a chair enjoying the fresh air.

CD???  I can't remember the last time I played a CD.  I certainly don't have a CD player in my car.     But I have listened to some books on audiofiles.

I can rent those through my local library as well.... online.

Sent from my SM-G928V using Tapatalk

It's true you can get audiofiles...not sure if I've every looked into doing that.   Hmmmm.

It's super easy!

I should look at that.  I've got some hard copies to finish up...but I should do that for certain.

[Juniper]

That says SO much about you!

Really?  Like what?

Like he is willing to devote only 2 hours to learning anything, I guess?

That's a ridiculous assumption that comes from you not being able to follow a conversation.

You are the one who compared a book that would take many many hours to read to a TWO HOUR documentary.

I simply said...."But If I wanted to learn about WW2 in two hours. What would be the most informational . A book or a documentary?"

Key words....IN TWO HOURS!   I think maybe when you don't have a good answer you just act like you don't hear me.

I think I followed the conversation. 
You want to "learn about WW2 in two hours"? 

Now you're just being condescending Wonky.

[tvguy]

Like he is willing to devote only 2 hours to learning anything, I guess?

That's a ridiculous assumption that comes from you not being able to follow a conversation.

You are the one who compared a book that would take many many hours to read to a TWO HOUR documentary.

I simply said...."But If I wanted to learn about WW2 in two hours. What would be the most informational . A book or a documentary?"

Key words....IN TWO HOURS!   I think maybe when you don't have a good answer you just act like you don't hear me.

I think I followed the conversation. 
You want to "learn about WW2 in two hours"? 

That's not what I said. If I ONLY had two hours could I learn the most watching a documentary or reading a book.

You know the answer is the documentary, you just can't admit it.

Whatever...I'm really getting tired of this crap.

In post #44 

Juniper said:

One reason could be that books pack a lot more information in than documentaries.

 And you replied:

"In the same amount of time?"

And things went downhill from there. Who the hell is talking about time? We were talking about the value of reading. You gave good examples of the value of documentaries, specials like how to skin animals, etc. and it changes NOTHING. 
Watch TV AND read!


So argue with yourself.

There is nothing to argue about. Things only went downhill because of you.

YES!!! Juniper said books pack in a lot more information than documentaries.
Well OF COURSE they do because it takes a LOT more time to get that information from a book.
So when I asked "in the same amount of time it was to make a very valid point"

A point everyone got but you because you compared a book with over 1000 pages to a 2 hour documentary

[Juniper]

Actually, you can stream stuff from the Jackson County Library.

Really?

[tvguy]

Really?  Like what?

Like he is willing to devote only 2 hours to learning anything, I guess?

That's a ridiculous assumption that comes from you not being able to follow a conversation.

You are the one who compared a book that would take many many hours to read to a TWO HOUR documentary.

I simply said...."But If I wanted to learn about WW2 in two hours. What would be the most informational . A book or a documentary?"

Key words....IN TWO HOURS!   I think maybe when you don't have a good answer you just act like you don't hear me.

I think I followed the conversation. 
You want to "learn about WW2 in two hours"? 

Now you're just being condescending Wonky.

True to form.